Un Francais - Seeing Racism from Within

The film that takes on skinheads and the far right

By Hugh Schofield

A new French movie is causing ructions over claims that it is too incendiary for general release. The film is about a violent skinhead and the origins of France's far-right political movement.

A film that shows the redemption of a racist thug: does it help us understand the true nature of racist thuggery? Or does it normalize racism? Or does it trivialize the problem? Those are questions raised by the movie Un Francais - A Frenchman.

Directed by the little-known Patrick Aste, who goes by the name Diasteme, Un Francais tells the story of a 1980s skinhead who starts life beating up black people but 30 years later is helping migrants at a Paris soup kitchen.

Marco's journey is being hailed as a breakthrough in French cinema, because Un Francais is the country's first ever film to deal in depth with the violent ultra right and the roots of the Front National.

Though the party is never actually named, the FN's presence permeates the film. Early on Marco gets taken on as a party security goon, and by the end his one-time colleagues are basking in the far right's new respectability.

"You can see the film as a metaphor for the progress of the Front National. Like the party, the hero starts out as unacceptable but he evolves into something much more conformist, more banal," says Jean-Christophe Buisson, arts editor at Le Figaro magazine.

UNSPARING

In his early scenes Diasteme is unsparing with the violence. We see Marco beating up Socialist bill-posters, and humiliating Arabs in a cafe. In the most disturbing scene - based on a real-life incident - a black man is made to drink caustic soda and dies.

But already there are signs of his impending crisis. Marco suffers a fit of breathlessness after he sees the fear in the faces of an Arab family on a bus. He befriends a doctor and gradually falls out with his skinhead gang.

Fast forward to today, and Marco's friends are in prison, dead, or transmogrified into spokesmen of the new smooth-talking far right. He is alone, in the same dead-end high-rise from where he started out.

Critical reaction to the film as a piece of cinema has been mixed. The central performance by Alban Lenoir is strong, but structurally Un Francais lacks dramatic tension. In its first week on national release, it has only sold about 35,000 tickets.

But over the subject matter - far-right violence - debate is raging, especially after director Diasteme claimed cinema managers found it too hot to handle.

According to the director, around 50 avant-premier, or previews, which were to have taken place ahead of release last week were cancelled. He said this was because of a "campaign of hate" against the film on the internet.

PUBLICITY RUSE

The implication was that supporters of the far right - incensed by the film's portrayal of skinheads - were threatening cinemas, and managers were deciding to drop the film rather than risk trouble.

In fact there is little evidence of any campaign of hate mail, and several French newspapers have suggested the whole row was a publicity ruse.

It is also far from certain that the film necessarily harms the far right.

Undoubtedly it was conceived by Diasteme as an anti-FN project. The violence is graphic, and even in airbrushed modern-day garb the far-right characters are obviously intended to be nasty.

For film critic Romain Blondeau of the magazine Les Inrockuptibles, "It is an important film because of the political context of today.

"Just as the FN is trying to become normal and respectable, Un Francais is a timely reminder that it is not a normal, respectable party. It is a party whose origins are violent and racist."

But at a deeper level, some would argue that merely by making the far right the subject of a film, Diasteme has unwittingly abetted the process of FN "normalisation".

TABOO

"Until now the far right has been taboo in the world of culture," says Buisson. "The only way to treat it was as a moral evil, to equate it with fascism, and damn everyone who was associated with it.

"But now we have a film which is so much more interesting because it dares to talk about the psychological path of an individual.

"For the first time in French cinema we are looking at a member of the far right as a human being. No longer are they just the savage brutes whose only interest is beating up their enemies. Here is someone on the far right with the same doubts, feelings and frustrations as everyone else."

In other words, just as the FN is becoming part of the political mainstream, so are far-rightists being portrayed for the first time in the arts as more than mere ciphers.

Not that that thought particularly pleases the people on whom Un Francais is actually based - French skinheads.

Today far-right skinheads are a tiny minority in France. For all the attempts in parts of the press to portray them as such, they are hardly a national threat.

INCENSED

That is partly why ex-skinheads like Serge Ayoub are so incensed at Un Francais. In his eyes, the film is a lazy potshot at an easy target.

"How about this idea for a film," he says ironically. "A Maghrebi drop-out from the banlieues who deals in drugs and guns, and then has a conversion and discovers that he loves France. Now that would have been a courageous film!"

Ayoub, who is 50, began adult life very much as Marco in the film. As a young far-right tough, he loved English punk and earned the nickname Batskin. Today he remains a theorist of the ultra-nationalist right, and is watched by the police.

"What I loathe about this film," he says, "is the way it frames life in terms of good and evil. To redeem himself, the hero has to leave behind his 'evil' past.

"But the world is more complicated. If skinheads are violent, it is because violence is all they have left. All the skinhead has are his hands to work with. And his fists to express himself.

"That is why the skinhead is revolutionary. That is what is interesting. And that is what this film does not talk about."

As for the Front National, the party's vice-president Florian Philippot told me the film was so detached from reality that it was not worth commenting on.

"I know the director wants to pretend it is all about the FN, but in fact it is about a handful of thugs. There is no connection at all," he said. "Also I am told it is a lousy. I expect it to sink without trace."

Un Francais is certainly not going to make box-office history. But its importance lies less in its cinematic qualities than in the fact that it was made at all.

Reproduced with acknowledgements to BBC News Magazine

Can We Love the '70s and Still Outgrow its Attitudes?

It broke my heart when certain now universally-known facts first emerged about the 1970s glam superstar Gary Glitter. To those of us of a certain age Glitter personified everything that was fun and sparkly about that unique period in our recent cultural history.

He was no musical giant, of course. But his songs were audacious and bursting with braggadocio. He gave us a laugh, and made young men like me feel mightily good about ourselves.

Needless to say it was less of a laugh for the victims of his sexual abuse. Less too for those of the astoundingly prolific pervert Jimmy Savile. And in the wake of the shocking revelations about the literally hundreds of inappropriate liaisons that Jim managed to fix came news of so many others in the world of seventies music and popular culture who, albeit on a thankfully smaller scale, also seemed to have groped and molested their way through the decade with impunity.

SELFISH

It seems a tad selfish then to remark that the discoveries of the erstwhile antics of Glitter, Savile et al were like daggers to the hearts of '70s-worshippers such as myself. For all the soul searching it has caused the likes of me, and for all the worry and heartache that accompanies the thought that we may for so long have been living a lie, the experience cannot begin to compare with that of those who suffered directly at their hands.

By comparison with what was going on in music the world of seventies comedy would appear to have been relatively untouched by the hand of scandal. However recent documentaries and television features have served to remind us that the sitcom and stand-up that passed for innocent entertainment in those days had an intrinsic shock value all of its own.

Jokes of a racial and homophobic nature were for a very long time at the root of much if not most of our comedy. Along with, of course, laughing at people with disabilities and generally adhering to negative stereotypes of all kinds of people. It is only fairly recently that this long prevalent culture has been successfully challenged.

UNTHINKABLE

Furthermore it wasn't only those sitcoms which had racial adversity at their core, such as Love They Neighbour and Till Death Do Us Part, that were guilty. Even one famous episode of Fawlty Towers, written by the impeccably liberal John Cleese, contained the words "w*g" and "n****r" - terms the use of which would rightly be unthinkable today.

Stand-up was probably more tainted still. Stupid Irishmen, tight-fisted Jews (or Scots), smelly Asians and criminal West Indians were the foundation stones of a goodly proportion of what was more or less universally accepted as good comedy in those days. And if we're being honest, how many of us could truly say we did not find Manning funny?

Thankfully our perceptions have changed. Much of what I used to laugh at now makes me squirm with embarrassment. I hate Political Correctness, but subconsciously have probably taken on board 90% of its fundamental premises.

MAGNETISM

So how can it be then that so many of us still so love the 1970s? What, precisely, is to celebrate about a decade of sexual abuse, racial stereotyping, industrial unrest, Cold Wars, impractical attire and vomit-inducing bubble gum?

The answer is, I think, that all our shortcomings were trumped with love. There was a magnetism, and an overriding self-deprecating humour, which if it did not make all the ignorance and the prejudice okay at least relegated it to something less serious, less integral to what made that society tick than might suggest itself to somebody looking back at the 1970s today. We fought on the football terraces wearing loon pants and butterfly collars, for goodness' sake. We said and did some very dumb things but nothing was meant too literally.

If you think that sounds like an excuse then probably you have a point. But nothing will take away from me the affection I had for that glorious, golden decade, from which my soul has held onto everything that was pure and conveniently rejected everything that was hateful. There's no going back to Love Thy Neighbour or Gary Glitter, but I still had my gang and it was mine.

Is Farage Treading an Old Path to Oblivion?

One of the few blessings that I have acquired in a lifetime of political interest and involvement is an exceptional long-term memory. No matter that I am more than capable of venturing out into the rain having forgotten to put my shoes on, I can nonetheless still recall verbatim particular conversations that I had with particular people in particular situations in days when we all watched TV in black and white.

I was only a boy of fifteen when I joined the National Front back in 1977, but I do remember the buzz of excitement and expectation that existed around the party at that time. Although at its heart it was an anti-democratic party the NF was committed at the time to following the electoral road to power, which after all its Austrian mentor had himself trodden successfully. Ever-increasing returns from elections, local and national, seemed to confirm that the party was on its way. There was no need to shun democracy for as long as it seemed to be working in one's favour.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL ELECTIONS

It seems incredible to reflect that even in its halcyon days of the 1970s the National Front never won a single seat on a single local council. It came exceptionally close, capturing more than 30% of the vote in several wards in its East London and other heartlands. In the Greater London Council elections of 1977 it won 119,000 votes in the capital, and a local election in Deptford saw a combined vote of 44.5% for the NF and National Party (an NF splinter group), against 43% for the victorious Labour candidate. The NP won two local council seats in Blackburn. At its absolute peak, NF membership was nudging 20,000.

The reasons why the NF never made the breakthrough to actual electoral success are manifold. The party's electoral strategy was, to begin with, designed with rapid national success firmly in mind. Subconsciously party managers were only too well aware that the whole edifice was constructed on sand. Living a lie by presenting itself as a democratic patriotic party when at its core its philosophy was national socialist it could have been forgiven for fearing that a period of "middle management" which would have exposed it to the daylight may actually have been detrimental to the realisation of its long term aims. Particularly as most of its candidates would have made noticeably poor councillors.

Secondly the party system was less fluid than it is today. With a significantly higher percentage of voters still committed to one or other of the big mainstream parties, often still according to class background or loyalties, and generally better turnouts, the prospects for an outsider party to launch a successful assault even at local council level were less promising.

Thirdly, and associated with the previous point, there was already an aura of "bad news" developing around the NF. Its opponents relentlessly opposed it as a nazi party through publicity campaigns, demonstrations, media coverage and youth culture and, whilst the Front had constructed an elaborate defence strategy to try to minimise the effect of such attacks, that strategy was somewhat compromised by the fact that, in essence, the allegations were true.

AGE OF THATCHERISM

When the general election of 1979 took place all of these facts eventually conspired to deliver the National Front a hammer blow from which it never recovered. An unwitting pincer movement by the combined forces of the anti-racist left and a dynamic new Conservative Party leadership drew the large majority of the NF's erstwhile voters away, and the age of Thatcherism began in earnest.

What comparisons can be made between the NF's adventure in the mid to late 1970s and that currently being enjoyed by Nigel Farage and the UK Independence Party?

At every level UKIP has exceeded anything the NF ever achieved even at its peak. It has a number of councillors. Recently it won its first ever parliamentary election, by a landslide, and is anticipating another as I write. At this year's elections to the European Parliament UKIP won more votes, and returned more MEPs, than any of the establishment parties.

Whilst it is important to acknowledge that, unlike the NF of yesteryear, UKIP is not an extremist party with an underlying anti-democratic agenda, many of those who follow it are of a similar ilk to those I used to share meetings with back in those far-off days. Old reactionaries, averse to Johnny Foreigner and bemoaning the loss of Empire, are not a great deal different today to what they were four decades ago. For the NF they were padding, a useful veneer with which to mask a much nastier and more sinister reality. In UKIP's ranks they are probably more genuinely welcome. But they are of a similar stock.

Like the NF, UKIP do sometimes get a bad press from the anti-racist movement - but there are two essential differences. The first is that charges of racism, and more especially those of fascism, stick far less. There are no embarrassing photographs of which I am aware of Farage parading around the English countryside in paramilitary uniform. No quotes about putting people into gas chambers. No prison sentences served for violent and unlawful political activity. The second is that much of the "left" which comprises that movement is still sufficiently emotionally attached to Labour not to want to unsettle too much a rising political party which takes most of its votes from the Tories.

Nevertheless, one has to ask whether the powers that be will ever trust UKIP, as an outsider party, enough to allow it to make the breakthrough which runs the risk of changing the character of a hitherto obedient party system forever. If it won't, then at some point they will need to act.

Currently the big parties seem to be following what is really something of a non-strategy, vying limply with one other for the UKIP vote. Doubtless the Tories, who have the most to lose, will be scouring the sewers for undiscovered dung piles which can be unveiled to the voting public at strategic times during the coming campaign. Labour loyalists meanwhile must decide just how comfortably their natural aversion the UKIP-style politics can sit with their hopes that a divided right-leaning vote will help ease Labour into office.

What It Really Means When You Like or Share Content from Britain First

On these pages we frequently take the time out to celebrate the genuinely positive things which come from social media, such as the force for good that was Stephen Sutton and the unanticipated impact of the no-make-up-selfie movement.

Every now and then however we have to comment on the darker side, the way that the democratisation of publishing and communication is exploited in the service of what can only be described as evil. Because a lot of non-evil people are getting suckered in, being used to spread reach and support for the organisation Britain First – whose Facebook Page likes are currently growing at around 8000 per day.

Other than masters of social media manipulation, who are Britain First? They are a registered political party under the leadership of one James Dowson, who split from the BNP to form his own movement some years ago on a platform of evangelicism, anti-abortion, anti-islam and anti-immigration homophobic hate campaigns. They drive around in military jeeps outside mosques handing out alcohol to fuel mobs recruited from the EDL, and have links with violent extremist groups in Northern Ireland.

None of the above facts play too well on social media though, so how have they become the fastest-growing UK political movement in Facebook history, with over 300k likes – more than the Conservative, Labour and UKIP pages combined? [UPDATED: UKIP growing too fast for this statistic to hold up now] And generated levels of engagement – the ‘people talking about this’ factor – that would leave most brand’s social media managers wringing their hands in envy?

By using simple, emotive viral content, which people click ‘like’ and ‘share’ on – without stopping to think about the cause they are actually promoting and spreading.

Love Diana? Support our troops? Revere the D-Day heroes? (You know, the guys who died fighting fascism 70 years ago..?) An endearing image, a catchy meme – how can you NOT click ‘like’, unless you actually disagree and support paedophiles, right?

In the run-up to the recent European and local elections in the UK, millions of UK residents will have been exposed to a piece of Britain First content – more than buy physical copies of newspapers such as The Independent or The Guardian in any seven day period. Combined with the context of the rise of far right groups in other parts of the continent, and the most cursory reading of the history of the past century, this should make every thinking person’s blood run cold.

“Oh, but I don’t ‘do’ politics” / “I don’t care what they stand for I was touched by that photo” / “Halal just sounds so cruel and I love animals” people wail, when you call them out on sharing content from this evil violent fascist hate-filled organisation.

Well, then you are as much a part of the problem as the people creating and sharing this content in the first place. In some ways you are worse, because those who actually believe in are easy to spot and eliminate from my friends list.

It’s the people I know to be basically good compassionate humans, but think it’s OK to share this stuff, which make me want to weep. They don’t realize they are being cynically manipulated to spread a campaign of hate – how did those fallen veterans consent to the use of their image in this way? Why have the family of Lee Rigby had to undertake legal battles to stop Britain First exploiting the name of their murdered son, on their election campaigning material as well as their social media content? There is nothing this group will not do, no depths they will not sink to, when it comes to exploiting misery and division to fundraise for their campaigns of hate.

Every time you like, share or comment on a Facebook post by Britain First, you create a story in your newsfeed, and spread their reach and their message further. You help them fundraise for their violent oppressive demonstrations and campaigns, you help them threaten peaceful people at worship, you help them beat up gay people, spread poison and divisiveness, you help them fuel ignorance and hate.

Please do not misunderstand me, everyone’s party political views are their own. I enjoy friendship and dialogue with many people whose opinions on many matters I am fundamentally opposed to, or have little interest in. Unlike Britain First I embrace and celebrate diversity and difference, and intelligent discussion of different points of view – heaven knows the world is in a mess right now and I have no grand opinions on the best way to fix it, talking about ideas with people whose ideas challenge and push at your own is a good way of developing solutions.

But it is that frustration at traditional party politics, the anger at austerity, the fear of further loss, that is being exploited by the far right – again.

If you share content from Britain First because you believe in what they stand for then fine, unlike that organisation I actually respect your right to that opinion – let’s go our separate ways and be done with it. Please remove me from your friends list, if I have not already done so recently.

And if you were suckered by their sugar-coated emotive linkbait into sharing something that no-one could disagree with, and you now regret it, you know where the delete button is

(if you don’t – it’s here)

If you have friends who need to read this and make up their own minds about where they stand on disseminating hate propaganda, do consider sharing this post, either on your timeline or as a comment on the content they have shared.

Thanks for reading.

[UPDATED 10-7-14] Not sure whether to laugh or cry over the latest cynical bandwagon jumping by Britain First. They must have had this meme out within about an hour of the press announcement of the unexpected death of one of the UK’s lefty comedy icons. I am sure the friends and family of Rik Mayall have better things to focus on right now than this exploitation following their sudden bereavement, and I am sure the man himself would be roaring with indignant laughter,

About as hilarious as their invocation of Gandhi on their page yesterday as well. Apparently on account of his animal rights positioning – well, so long as we’d never let him through customs and immigration.

Rebel in Paradise Rik, thanks for all the laughs over all the years.



Reproduced with acknowledgements to Costa Connected.

Nick Griffin Expelled as BNP Follows a Time-Honoured Tradition

 

When I stumbled by chance yesterday evening upon an article on the BBC News website breaking the news that Nick Griffin had been expelled from membership of the British National Party my first reaction was to laugh out loud.

My mirth was induced not by any desire to heap scorn upon a man whom I’d considered a friend and comrade in the days when we shared a political outlook which I’ve since come to despise. Rather it was the amused reaction of one who had once more been reminded of the perennial farce that is and always has been the far-right’s approach to organisational etiquette.

Griffin and I were both young men in the National Front in the late 1970s, when the racist party had emerged from an acrimonious split with a Strasserite faction, which had oddly allied itself to a right-wing Tory-inclined faction in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to wrest control of the organisation from the national socialist clique which had ruled with a hidden hand more or less since the NF’s inception a decade or so earlier.

MARGINS

During the latter part of the seventies the party mood had been upbeat and expectant as election results got better and better and the breakthrough for which it had hankered appeared increasingly imminent. When instead of achieving that breakthrough electoral support crashed, membership figures plummeted and the organisation was reconsigned to the margins whence it had come the then NF leader John Tyndall scarpered to form his own breakaway party, the New National Front (which, ironically, would later become the British National Party). So bitter was the manner of his parting that Tyndall and those who had followed him very quickly became non-people, whose names could no longer be spoken.

Nick Griffin, the NF’s National Student Organiser, was by this time already firmly ensconced on the party’s governing body, the National Directorate.

A shadow of its only recently former self the NF trundled along, holding badly-attended public activities in the back of beyond which had become more of an institutional nostalgia trip than a serious attempt at winning friends and influence, until the de facto leader of the party and “mastermind” of the failing strategy, Martin Webster, was ousted from his post of National Organiser following a carefully managed coup in which Griffin was instrumental. Needless to say the transition from deposed leader to expelled ex-member was, for Webster, a rapid one and he and his supporters very quickly became persona non grata, the more outspoken amongst them soon finding themselves the unwilling recipients of some pretty disgusting (if sometimes rather imaginative) hate material.

For a few years thereafter the National Front, sans Webster, ploughed new furrows, enjoying small oases of success amid a wider desert of failure as the party remained the retreat of the lonely, the obsessive and the eccentric. Nick Griffin was a major player, although there were other major players too. There were fewer though once the split of 1986 had taken place. At a historic meeting of the National Directorate in Slough factions led on the one side by Griffin and on the other by Martin Wingfield, Andrew Brons and the late Ian Anderson went their separate ways in a dispute which began with the almost gentlemanly exchange of letters of expulsion and culminated in the attempted car-bombing of Anderson’s motor vehicle and the breaking of the then Griffin supporter Patrick Harrington’s arm during a factional scuffle outside an East London public house.

For the remainder of the 1980s the two factions, both calling themselves the National Front, dedicated themselves almost entirely to the cause of trying either to harass or to embarrass the other out of existence. When the anti-Griffin NF announced its intention to stage a march against Middle Eastern terrorism the pro-Griffin version would distribute a press release declaring its undying love for the fathers of the Iranian Revolution. When the Griffinites denounced the Union Flag as an imperialist rag the Wingfieldites, for want of a better term, would bedeck every page of their propaganda material with it.

ITALIAN EXILES

Then, in 1989, Griffin and a few others got itchy feet and decided they would relocate what was left of the party (or at least their faction thereof) to the French countryside, much to the chagrin of Patrick Harrington who by now was running the organisation on a day-to-day basis from his Mum’s basement pad in Kensington. The result, inevitably, was not a mature discussion on the future direction of the party but rather its division into two further factions, this time neither of them laying claim to the name “National Front”. The Griffin group, backed by the Italian exiles around Roberto Fiore, became the International Third Position whilst what remained in England changed its name to the Third Way. The Wingfield/Anderson faction, whose existence everybody had all but forgotten, thereby became the one and only National Front by default. Every one’s a winner.

By far-right standards the ITP/TW split was relatively civil. Both parties decided to go fairly much their own way and to do fairly much their own thing. Both organisations still exist today, in one form or another, but Nick Griffin has nothing to do with either of them

When I parted company from the far-right and its ideology towards the end of 1991 – many years later than I ought to have done – Griffin was still a member of the ITP, although recovering from the shotgun cartridge accident in France which led to him losing an eye. It was some while later that he joined the BNP, apparently via an incident in which he managed to relieve an ITP colleague of his life savings through an ill-advised printing venture, and determined from the beginning that he would usurp the leadership from the now ageing John Tyndall. Within a few years he had achieved his objective of taking control of the party which he had once so disparaged. Before long, naturally, Tyndall had been expelled.

Under Griffin and his “modernisation” strategy the BNP achieved considerable, if temporary success. At one point it was able to count its councillors (including parish) in three figures, as well as boasting two MEPs and an elected representative on the Greater London Authority. His ability to achieve this was down to lessons learned from the experience of the NF in the 1970s coupled with an understanding of the importance of building from the grass roots, a strategy to which Webster had been oblivious. Add this to a political climate in which establishment politicians were held in low regard, low voter turnout and an element of personal media savvy and he and the BNP were away. Sadly for him the quality of his elected councillors was found wanting and his unwillingness or inability to train them conspired against any prospect of sustained growth.

DECLINE

As decline began to set in BNP members began to ask questions. They questioned Griffin’s tactics. They questioned his commitment to core principles – some traditionalists felt he had moved away from those great fictions that have sustained “nationalist” ideology in the UK since the Second World War whilst some of the newer recruits feared he was still old guard at heart. Most of all, they questioned his financial probity. Talk abounded of large sums of money unaccounted for, dodgy deals, debts not honoured, employees not paid and all manner of other irregularities.

A common by-product of the disputes that beset the BNP during its later days of decline was the emergence of leadership challenges. Chris Jackson, Colin Auty, Eddy Butler, Andrew Brons – all of them tried, failed – and ended up outside of the party in short order. Nick Griffin, as the far-right itself, has never done “ordinary” leadership contests in which the best person wins and the other shakes hands and lends his or her full support to the victor. For as long as I can remember, every leadership challenge in the recent history of the far-right has resulted in expulsions, resignations and bitter recriminations.

As the BNP’s star has faded with the emergence to major prominence of UKIP which, despite its undisputed commitment to democratic traditions, casts its net wide enough to enable it to embrace most erstwhile far-righters, so my own interest in keeping a watchful eye on the BNP and other far-right groups has mellowed. Nevertheless I have been periodically following with voyeuristic interest the fortunes of what very little is left of the BNP, from the moment when Griffin “stepped down” to make way for one Adam Walker (whom I’ve never met, but from his track record he seems none too bright) to his inevitable expulsion.

My amusement derives from the fact that Nick Griffin’s BNP career has ended in precisely the same manner as that of every one of his victims, from his expulsion without a proper hearing to the obligatory whinging about the unfairness of it all.

It is difficult to predict where Nick Griffin will go from here. Much depends on whether, at 55 and with 40 years of flat-out political activity behind him, he has the stomach for beginning all over again. Maybe he’ll fight for his job back which, with the BNP’s current fortunes, is akin to squabbling over the best seat on the proverbial Titanic. Or maybe he will regard it as a blessing and launch a new project of his own, one more suited to the current UKIP-friendly climate. His traditional support base has not vanished, it has simply relocated to a nicer home. For as long as it exists, it has the potential to return to the far-right if it gets its act together and the “moderate” UKIP fails to maintain momentum. To get rid of it for good we need to educate, not manipulate.

To some Nick Griffin is the man who almost took racism and fascism into the political mainstream. To others he is a charlatan who has run the BNP in the manner of some two-bit gangster, first cooking up spurious charges and later expelling all his critics within the movement. It is difficult not to see that the folk now running the party who have expelled him for bringing the organisation into disrepute are treading a well-trodden track.

From Lower Down You Just Seemed So Much Better

This line is from a track called All In All by Dexy’s Midnight Runners, from the group’s defining Too-Rye-Ay album recorded in 1982. It sprung oddly to mind a week or so ago as I watched a video on YouTube of one of my mentors of old pontificating about the threat that apparently exists to all mankind from the forces of "World Jewry".

I was inspired to watch the video by a curious chance encounter that had taken place in my home town of Isleworth that very morning.

My Independent Community Group (ICG) comrades and I had arranged to meet outside the Blue School for a short leafleting session in Old Isleworth. But as the rain intensified our Chair Ian Speed and I took refuge under the scant cover afforded by the doorway of the Swan public house.

Standing there I was vaguely aware of a man cycling past at some speed. My eyesight is poor these days and my vision was further obscured by the rain, so all I saw was a man on a bicycle wearing a cycling helmet. But when he spoke the immortal words "I’ve not seen you for a while, young man," without stopping, I instantly recognised a voice that I’d not heard for some 29 years.

Martin Webster was the de facto leader of the National Front when I first became a local organiser of the far-right party in the early 1980s. In my various travels around London and beyond on party business during that time I came into contact with him rather a lot - at meetings, seminars, social events and so on. He spoke at a Hounslow Branch meeting in Isleworth at least once, and drank with us at the very pub that I was standing outside when said encounter happened, on an evening when we were suddenly visited upon by about forty Labour Party activists who had been holding a meeting at the nearby Isleworth Public Hall, and this at a time when Labour members generally were considered left-wing and were often quite militant in their opposition to racism.

Webster was a larger than life character in more than just the physical sense. He was acknowledged, even by his opponents, as a talented organiser, although when the rules of the game changed as mainstream attitudes towards the racist right hardened he revealed himself to have been something of a one-trick pony. He had charisma, oodles of it, and no matter how many people were sat around a table with him he was invariably the one who would hold court. He had a crazy temper, to the point that when he was in full flight there was little point in ever trying to reason with him. One admired his intellect – he was a clever man, although not really an academic – and more than anything else he possessed a rapier wit.

It is often claimed, in historical volumes written about the National Front, that Webster was expelled from the party because he was homosexual. This is not true. The NF of the 1970s and 1980s was at its heart a homophobic party, but not as aggressively so as other far-right organisations before and after it. Webster was held in sufficiently high regard, and his strength of character was such, that he became very much accepted for what he was – until, that was, his organisational talents began to fail him. When he was expelled from the NF in 1984, it had all to do with his control-freakery, his maniacal tantrums and, of course, his opposition to the influence of the Italians around Roberto Fiore on the Front’s emerging young leaders, and nothing to do with his private life.

The purge against Webster and his close supporters began in late 1983, when a neat little two-step conjured up by the then young radicals Joe Pearce and Nick Griffin began with their resignation from the party as a protest against Webster’s style of leadership, and ended with them being reinstated after being pleaded with by the remaining party leaders, with Webster himself being offered up as the sacrifice.

Partly because I had been a victim of Webster’s outbursts myself on one or two occasions, but primarily because I considered myself to be something of a young radical who was sympathetic to what Pearce/Griffin, and the Italians, were trying to achieve, I lined up behind them and the Hounslow Branch of the NF, of which I was Organiser, did likewise. For my support I was rewarded with a place on the National Directorate and with the post of National Organiser of the Young National Front, although the latter came to mean very little as so young was the bulk of the party membership that the YNF and the NF itself were to all intents and purposes the same organisation comprising the same people.

Webster himself formed a short-lived grouplet which he called Our Nation, boasting about forty members, many of whom were relatively well-heeled and being such sustained him for a while as he plotted on the sidelines and became a bit of a thorn in the side of the new NF leadership until it became clear to him that he would not be coming back. Henceforth he went into retirement from party politics, although he continued to play a role on the far right as a public speaker at non-aligned events, as well being regarded as something of an authority on any subject which had the foul machinations of The Evil Jew at its heart. He also, to his credit, took advantage of the opportunity presented by his change of circumstances to work on his physical condition, and became a keen cyclist.

Throughout my time in the NF, even after Webster had gone, there remained a grudging respect for his intellect and for his personality. I always saw him as a bigger man than myself – sharper, more learned, wittier and with a superior organisational brain. So when I saw his video last week – and I listened to his speech from start to finish – I was actually very surprised by just how ordinary he sounded. Adequate but unspectacular in his delivery, ill-informed and unscientific in his presentation of what passed for facts, and just generally amateurish. In the long distant past, because he was older than me and exuded intelligence and a veneer of authority I had never doubted the accuracy of the things of which he spoke. What I heard on the video was, frankly, little more than ignorant drivel.

There is a popular saying that in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. It is only with the passage of time, and with the benefit of the life experience which I have since gained, that I have come to fully appreciate the magnitude of the blindness which surrounded me as an adherent of far-right ideology back in the 1980s.

Coming Face to Face With My National Front Past...Almost!

This may seem a strange topic to choose for my first post of 2013, but I had a weird dream the other night which I want to consign to record, as much for my own sanity as for anything else, but also to provide some light amusement for those who find such things amusing.

I was somewhere in a run-down area of London, in a derelict back street. The road was busy, although it was in actual fact a cul de sac terminating at the gates of an old factory. I was lazing about on a wall, actually lying down face forward, awaiting the arrival of some people who were going to join me on a demonstration. The factory employed mostly immigrant workers, who were being exploited by their management. The purpose of the demo was to protest against their treatment by the factory bosses.

In very little time several hundred people had arrived. They were a varied and colourful bunch, made up of all types of people. There were men and women of all ages, and from a whole variety of ethnic backgrounds. There were gay people (they seemed to be there as gay people) and, strangely, there was a group of men with shaven heads and identically attired in gold whom I presumed to be a religious sect of some form or another. A similarly-clad group dressed in pink then arrived, to the apparent chagrin of the gold people. I assumed these were from a rival religious sect.

But the folk I remember most vividly were an assortment of left-wing types, not in the union militant or Rocking Russian sense but more your trendy student, look-at-me, faux alternative stereotype. Although we shared a common cause I recall feeling uneasy around these people, not so much out of fear but more a sense of insincerity and general debasement of the mission upon which I was embarked.

The protest involved a march for the length of the street, after which we would turn left into a busy main thoroughfare. There, from within the sunken depths of a major London underground station, a National Front counter-demonstration was going to emerge onto the sidelines of our route comprising two to three hundred shouting, angry neo-fascists.

There was nothing to be frightened of. The whole area was saturated with police, both either side of the march and all around the tube station where the counter demonstration would first manifest itself. Besides, I knew nothing serious was going to happen because I had been there before.

Yes, you read that correctly. This was in actual fact an identical re-run of an event that had already taken place some time previously. Only on the earlier occasion I had been a participant in, and presumably an organiser of, the counter demonstration. As such I knew the whole day was going to pass without major incident.

In fact my only fear as I approached the junction and the counter demonstration, and I recall it was a very real fear, was that I was going to meet myself!

As we turned into the main street there was, bizarrely, a “commentator” at the side of the road with a microphone, giving an account of events to the participants as it was happening. He announced something to the effect of (I can’t recall the exact words): “Of course not everyone here is really one of us, are they Phil?”.

Rather than be shaken or wrong-footed by this, I simply laughed and gave him an ironic thumbs-up as I passed without looking directly at him. One or two of those around me glanced at me, perplexed, but nobody seemed overly concerned. It was, after all, only a dream (and I am blessed/cursed with the ability to usually know that I am dreaming) and I knew this guy was completely aware of my sincerity in supporting the cause of the exploited workers and opposing the fascists, and that he was simply making mischief. Most of those around me seemed to know it too.

But notwithstanding all this I was genuinely troubled, dream or no dream, by the prospect of meeting myself as we passed the counter demo. I can remember this feeling very clearly indeed.

The feared encounter never took place thanks, I think, to the timely intervention of my alarm clock. Nonetheless I remembered the whole thing so vividly, and still do some thirty hours later, that I decided I wanted to write it all down, for posterity or for future reference.

Most people who know me at all will be well aware that I was indeed a prominent member of the National Front many years ago. Some critics of my work in the community would prefer it were still so, and like to pretend that the two decades and more that have passed since I first turned my back on the far-right and renounced its politics have never taken place. Anybody who matters, though, is well acquainted with the full facts.

There was, of course, a certain amount of licence involved where my nocturnal adventure was concerned. Even as a National Front organiser I would never, for instance, have opposed a demonstration in support of exploited workers, immigrant or otherwise. And I have never seen any significant delegation of Hare Krishnas on any anti-fascist protest of my acquaintance, although the middle-class, plastic revolutionaries in duffle coats do ring true a tad.

I like to analyse my own dreams and more often than not I am able to see where they are coming from but at the time of writing I admit to being at a loss to make head or tail of this one. Maybe a friend, or indeed a foe, would like to try and help me out here?

Mo's Victory is a Victory for Us All

 "Look mate, this is my country.

"This is where I grew up, this is where I started life. This is my country and when I put on my Great Britain vest I’m proud. I’m very proud."

These were the immortal words of Mo Farah, Olympic 10,000m gold medalist and Somalia-born Isleworthian, to a journalist who had asked whether he would have preferred to have run for Somalia.

In the space of a day athletes such as Mo and the spectacular, not to mention very personable, heptathlon gold winner Jessica Ennis gave a clinical demonstration of everything that is great about multi-ethnic, multi-cultural Britain.

I couldn't help but notice how Facebook friends whom I've known to mumble confused complaints about "too many Somalis" and to make negative comments about immigration were hailing our victorious athletes, proudly posting up photos of them bedecked in Union Flags and sporting their gold medals. Long may that spirit last.

I'm not a big flag waver myself, probably an adverse reaction to years of far right activity. But what I felt when watching Mo bide his time before taking his rightful place at the front of the pack and storming home to victory was an immense feeling of pride - national pride, local pride, and also a real sense of fulfilment at having "got it right" after so many years of trying to defend the indefensible, and excuse the inexcusable.

They painted the post box outside our local Post Office gold today in Mo's honour. Which was very apt, because Mo's victory was a victory for everything that we as a community stand for and hold dear.

The Demise of the BNP and the New Challenges it Brings

Some while ago I wrote on this blog about the emergence from the wreckage of the BNP of a grouplet calling itself the British Freedom Party and in particular about its professed creed of “cultural nationalism”. I expressed doubts at the time that the BFP would come to anything much. It appeared devoid of anybody with sufficient pedigree or charisma to overcome the enormous challenge of emerging from amid the confused mess that is the far right today and, as former NF leader Martin Webster is alleged to have once put it, of “kicking its way into the headlines” (Webster maintains that he used the word “crashing” as opposed to “kicking” but the point I am making remains).

Indeed it appeared even back then that some of the personalities the BFP did possess were of the destructive variety and were primed to bring embarrassment to the new party at any moment of their choosing.

I also remarked that, whilst I doubted the organisational potential of the BFP itself, the concept of cultural nationalism was one that could emerge when the smoke clears to cause very real problems.

Since its formation the BFP has hardly set the world alight, indeed one of its few actions of note has been to engage in its own acrimonious split which has lead the tiny party to divide into two even tinier, rival parties. However the faction retaining the party name surprised a few observers recently when it announced the formation of some manner of pact/agreement/merger (the precise nature of the deal depends very much upon whom one is listening to) with the controversial English Defence League (EDL).

The EDL itself, of course, preaches a similar cultural nationalist message in that it professes to be a movement solely opposed to militant Islam and one that is not racially exclusive. The reality is that its ranks are filled with racists and politically is to all intents and purposes a street army of the far right. It, too, has experienced splits and leadership disputes in recent months.

More on cultural nationalism anon, but in the meantime it is worth taking some time out to catch up with developments within the mainstream of the far right, if that is not a contradiction in terms.

The BNP continues to crumble under the weight of serious debt, poor votes and a massive decline in membership numbers. As it does so sundry factions squabble over the corpse, some opting for fight and others for flight.

Those inclined to fight are largely rallied around Andrew Brons MEP, a retired politics lecturer from Harrogate who was elected to the European Parliament alongside BNP leader Nick Griffin in 2009. After months of apparent indecision Brons, a former Chairman of the National Front, this year challenged Griffin for the leadership of the BNP and lost by a mere nine votes in an election that seemed to be conducted very much on Griffin’s terms to say the least.

Despite his youthful activities as a keen member of the late Colin Jordan’s National Socialist Movement (he once wrote to Jordan’s equally Nazi wife Francoise that he held a “dual view” as to whether or not burning down synagogues was a good thing to do, whilst ordering a consignment of stickers with swastikas on), Brons seems to have managed to gain for himself a reputation on the far right as a logical and reasonable man, as well as being something of a thinker. His genteel manner, his intellect and his maturity in years command him respect and he would appear to have been adopted as some kind of wise elder statesman within the movement, although some others accuse him of being a ditherer due to his apparent reluctance to make a decisive move in his ongoing quarrel with Griffin.

The current state of play is that Brons and his supporters have created what they refer to as a “parallel party” within the BNP, retaining their membership and professing their loyalty to the party whilst not to Griffin himself and organising around a website called “BNP Ideas”, effectively daring Griffin to expel them.

Meanwhile the flighters include 2010 leadership challenger Eddy Butler, who has joined the English Democrats, an organisation that seems to operate just within the pale although the infusion of ex-BNP bigwigs may have the effect of changing that. They also include one Jim Dowson, a businessman whose recruitment by Griffin as an “industry expert” to make the BNP money was one of the biggest bones of contention at the time of the Butler challenge, but who has since fallen out with Griffin himself and now heads his own breakaway group calling itself Britain First.

What this all has to do with cultural nationalism is the opportunity that the general realignment of the far right affords it to reassess the way in which it pitches its message. With the field awash with small groups and disgruntled individuals as the parent organisation reluctantly but most certainly disappears further into oblivion the potential for fusion around a new strategy is a worrying one. Particularly when the message essentially masks the same underlying racist philosophy.

For what has changed is not the type of individuals that we are dealing with. There is nothing about the EDL that makes it in any way more cuddly or more acceptable than the BNP, or the NF of bygone days. Fascists have not suddenly become nicer people. On the contrary all that is different is the demographic. The far right, for the most part, recognises that a seismic shift has taken place in the composition of our society since the days when the movement could say “Send them all home!” and still credibly maintain that “they” had an identifiable home to go to.

Anybody who wishes to understand the potential for cultural nationalism needs only to walk into any working men’s club and listen for a few moments to the conversation when it gets around to immigration. The message everyday people are getting from the tabloids is that a new generation of immigrants is receiving everything on a plate, has hostile intentions towards the (now multi-ethnic) host community and is challenging us all for resources that with the economic downturn have already become scarce. In the absence of any information to correct these false perceptions it is little wonder that they are held close by people who are otherwise normal and decent.

Generally people are not racist in the sense of having a conscious belief that they are in some way superior to other people (although ironically some “anti-racists” of my acquaintance would appear to make similar assumptions about themselves). However in my experience there is clearly a “dislike of difference” which leads them to be mistrustful of others whose looks, dress and mannerisms differ from their own and which, when coupled with a belief that the other community is in receipt of special favour, makes many an obvious soft sell for the cultural nationalist argument that “it’s not about race but…”.

Where there are myths perpetuated about the nature and intentions of the group, as in the case of Islam, this is even more so.

A cultural nationalist position furthermore gives the racist an unhealthy amount of wiggle room. In defence it is not about race or ethnicity so nobody need be offended, but in attack it means that everybody needs to be “like us” and, where the message is receiving a sympathetic hearing, opens the door to all the prejudices and hatreds that have historically informed the far right. It is an expandable, contractible ideology which can mean almost anything the intended audience wishes it to mean, yet retains racism and xenophobia at the core of its message.

Common sense suggests that there will be a regrouping on the far right and whilst we rightly celebrate the demise of the BNP this, perversely, has the potential to trigger it. While the economic conditions remain, and ignorance abounds, there is no logical reason why fascism should suddenly vanish, or why racists should cease being racists and not look to organise themselves again. With the “soft” nationalism of UKIP and the English Democrats enjoying some popularity and with a small army of stateless ex-BNP and soon to be ex-BNP followers looking for a new home, it is important that anti-fascists do not take their eye off the ball.

If I sound defeatist or fatalistic then it needs to be understood that I flag up this prospect because somebody has to, and in the hope that those whose task it will be to confront the new threat will be ready and waiting for it. A new wave of far right activity is inevitable, but its success most certainly isn’t.

The Case Against the Muslamic Infidels Explained (aka The Muslamic Ray Guns)

Support the Good Folk

I'm not a "folkie" by any stretch of the imagination, but I always had a soft spot for the Geordie folk-rock group Lindisfarne. Indulging this soft spot during my far-right days meant overlooking their anti-racist stance and pretending that any references to the same that emerged from their music and interviews meant something different to what it actually said.

Now that I'm free of all that rubbish I don't have to pretend, I can just enjoy.

When browsing through their website the other day I came across a reference to an organisation called Folk Against Fascism, which I must admit I'd never heard of. When I see these things I often fear there is something more overtly political behind them, but this all seems sincere and innocent enough.

Take a look and decide for yourself.

A long shot

I see that in the light of the historic decision by a special elections court to strip erstwhile Labour MP Phil Woolas of his seat in Oldham East and Saddleworth on the grounds that he knowingly lied about an opponent and to re-run the contest Nick Griffin, Leader of the British National Party, has announced his intention to bring Barking Labour MP Margaret Hodge down under the same legislation, namely Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act.

Apparently at a meeting of black Christians in the run-up to the general election in May Hodge told her audience that the BNP would drop immigrants from aeroplanes if ever it was elected to power.

He seems to have overlooked a few minor considerations:

1. In order to challenge the outcome of an election a petition has to be submitted within 21 days of the result having been declared. As I write 211 days have passed since the general election and thus far no petition has been forthcoming.

2. The legislation requires deliberate falsehoods to have been levelled at a specific individual. Hodge's comments were directed at the BNP in general.

3. Woolas held onto his parliamentary seat by 103 votes. It is not unreasonable to suggest that in the absence of his smear campaign against his Liberal Democrat opponent the outcome could quite possibly have been different. Hodge on the other hand beat Griffin by 18,000 votes. He didn't even come second. The chances of there having been more than 18,000 black Christians at said private meeting who might have voted BNP had it not been for Hodge's remarks are remote to say the least.

4. Griffin is on record as having said that boats carrying immigrants into Europe should be sunk in the water. Now a boat is not an aeroplane, granted, but I suspect the sentiment is similar enough to present something of an obstacle to Griffin should he attempt to plead that Hodge's comments were an unfair reflection of his views.

I dare say this rather tacky publicity stunt/fund-raising gimmick will be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Tone down the shrill

The following message was sent out yesterday by Nick Lowles of HOPE Not Hate, an operation which is closely associated with the popular anti-fascist magazine Searchlight.

I have expressed my own reservations about Searchlight more than once. These are to a large extent based upon my personal experience as a former fascist with a story to tell, who still finds himself on the receiving end of Searchlight-inspired attacks in spite of my unconditional and unambiguous rejection of racism and the far-right over a period spanning nearly two decades.

My concerns that this behaviour suggests a political agenda beyond anti-fascism (in my case for organisational rather than ideological reasons I have traditionally found myself at loggerheads with the Labour Party in a strictly local context) are routinely pooh-poohed, but no other explanation for the group's remoteness and hostility has ever been forthcoming. So, as is my wont, I work alone.

Nevertheless the concerns expressed in the letter below are very real, and in my view deserve as much publicity and support as they can get:

"Last week Det Supt John Larkin, head of the West Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit, told the BBC that the activities of the English Defence League were pushing young Muslims towards Islamic extremist groups. His words echoed my recent blog where I said that the EDL and Muslims Against Crusades needed each other to justify their own existence - they were two sides of the same coin. It is a position you agreed with. Over 1,100 of you filled in our survey last week and 96% agreed with my analysis. Only 2% disagreed.

"If extremism breeds extremism it is also important to identify those who are fuelling this hatred in the first place and 73% of you told us it was the media. As a result we are launching a campaign for responsible journalism and have identified the Daily Star as our first target.

"I have written a letter to the newspaper's editor Dawn Neesom and I want you to co-sign it with me.

"We have gone through back copies of the Daily Star since Dawn Neesom became editor in 2003 and found hundreds of articles that portray Muslims in a negative way and very few where they have been portrayed positively. Many of these articles over-exaggerate the importance of tiny Muslim extremist groups while ignoring more mainstream Muslim opinion and use the words of these extremists to smear an entire faith. On other occasions they print inaccurate or slanted articles that whip up fear and mistrust.

"I conclude my letter by saying: 'Freedom of speech is correctly the cornerstone of British society but with freedom comes responsibility and we fear that your reporting is actually encouraging a growth in Muslim extremism in this country'.

"Will you tell Dawn to tone down the shrill?

"Our message to Dawn is simple: by all means be critical, by all means condemn, but do so with responsibility. At the moment you are overstepping the mark and you are encouraging division and hatred. And, as Det Supt John Larkin points out, this hatred is breeding extremism.

"Join us in telling Dawn and the Daily Star to stop being part of the cycle of hate.

"Thanks, Nick"

Us (the British) and them (the Muslims)

Reproduced with acknowledgements to Minority Thought.


The front page and main story of today's Daily Express is a clear and unsubtle attempt at maintaining the "us and them" mentality which is so often levelled by that paper against Muslims:


The headline refers to the shouts from "a group of men" (according to the Mail) who were sitting in the public gallery during the trial of Roshonara Choudhry, the woman convicted of stabbing Stephen Timms MP earlier this year.

As the Express reports:

"JEERING Muslim fanatics turned an Old Bailey court into a battleground yesterday after an Al Qaeda follower was jailed for stabbing an MP.

"In unprecedented scenes the angry mob chanted 'British go to hell' as would-be assassin Roshonara Choudhry was handed a sentence of life with a minimum of 15 years."

Rather than leading with the story at hand, the sentencing of Choudhry to "life" imprisonment, the Express has chosen to focus on the deranged rantings of a few nutcases in a courtroom instead. (Both the Daily Mail and The Sun have also gone with this angle, but neither has chosen to put it across in as brazen a way as the Express.).

That there are Muslim extremists who say such things is beyond a doubt. However, the Express' decision to make this the key focus of the story, along with the deliberately ambiguous language used in the headline, is an attempt to imply that these shouts are in some way an expression of what every Muslim thinks about the British.

The Express sees Muslims as a homogeneous mass that is in complete agreement with the ramshackle fanatics at its fringes. The headline is a dog-whistle signal for the idea that "Muslims" disapprove of "us British".

Can you imagine, for example, what the Express would have done if the men who broke into shouts of "Go to hell, Britain" were Christians? Would the Express have replaced "Muslims" with "Christians" in the headline? Would they even have mentioned it so prominently in the first place?

I doubt it.

Continuing the theme of rampant hysteria, the Express' article states that:

"The gang, sitting in the public gallery, chanted 'Allahu akbar' or 'God is great' and another demonstration raged outside the court."

"Raged"? Gosh, that sounds dramatic, doesn't it?

Between the Express, the Daily Mail and The Sun, the "raging" demonstration seems to have comprised of at least three poor souls holding particularly unimaginative print-outs:



In their articles about yesterday's events, the BBC and the Telegraph make no mention of the men holding signs outside or of the shouting from the gallery, and the Guardian makes a passing reference only to

"a small demonstration... taking place outside the court."

An examination of The Sun's article reveals the following:

"Security men bundled the ranting bigots from Court Seven after the disgraceful scenes.

"But the three were allowed to continue their poison rants [sic] in the street - yelling 'British soldiers must die'."

According to this, the demonstration outside appears to have consisted of the same men who were shouting in the gallery. Therefore the Express' claim that "another demonstration raged outside the court" seems pretty baseless.

Nonetheless, expect the wearisome English Defence League to seize this stormy teacup with both of their grubby hands.

(Both Tabloid Watch and Enemies of Reason have written fantastic posts on this.)

Lancaster Unity: The British Freedom Party & Fluffy Fascism

Another blog's take on the British Freedom Party:

Lancaster Unity: The British Freedom Party & Fluffy Fascism

Understanding the threat of "Cultural Nationalism"

A little over a month ago I commented upon the upheaval currently taking place within the British National Party (BNP), with party leader Nick Griffin finding himself being challenged for his job by Eddy Butler, a former NF stalwart from London's East End.

In that article I explained that Butler had unsurprisingly failed to meet the ludicrously prohibitive nominations criteria to enable his challenge to proceed to a full ballot against Griffin, and stated that the formation of a breakaway party was "almost inevitable".

I can now report that the almost inevitable has happened, in the event against the wishes of Butler who believes his best chance of seizing the leadership of the BNP rests upon him playing a waiting game and standing for the post again in 2011. At least that was what he believed earlier this week. The arrival a day or two ago of his notice of expulsion from the BNP may yet of course induce a rethink of some kind.

The breakaway has been forced by a number of Butler's more impatient supporters, who refuse to wait another year for the privilege of mounting another, probably doomed challenge under rules which appear designed for the specific purpose of giving Griffin a job for as long as he wants it.

The new venture goes under the name of the British Freedom Party (BFP). I'll not link to it, but for those who wish to see first hand what it is about I am sure Google will prove helpful.

One of the cheerleaders of the BFP would appear to be one Lee Barnes, formerly the BNP's celebrated legal eagle but now an outspoken anti-Griffinite. Like many of those involved on both sides of the dispute Barnes seems to have appeared on the far-right scene some considerable time after I departed it, but he has a reputation in fascist circles as being a wordy and knowledgeable if sometimes rather eccentric kind of guy.

On his blog Barnes advises us that the new outfit will pursue a policy of what he describes as "Cultural Nationalism", which he differentiates from "Ethno Nationalism" (based on race - you're okay if you're white) and "Civic Nationalism" (based on citizenship - you're okay if you have a British passport). According to Barnes:

"Those who are British citizens must integrate into British culture and society, it is not for us to surrender our country and culture, and re-engineer our society, to suit immigrants.

"All immigrants must become British - Britain will not become colonised.

"All those of all races and religions who are British citizens and who are proud to be British and who respect British culture are welcome to join our party."

Whether the BFP will ever amount to anything or whether it will fizzle out as so many other BNP breakaway groups have in the past is still to be seen. It is not a good start, from their point of view, that the anti-Griffin faction would already appear to have split between those who still believe the party can be changed from within and those who feel a new party is the answer. The latter would certainly appear to be devoid of anybody who could by any stretch of the imagination be described as a political heavyweight. Rumours abound that MEP Andrew Brons could be about to join them, but the journey from former Nazi Party sticker displayer to "Cultural Nationalist" would be a considerable one.

What I find myself contemplating with a degree of trepidation is a redrawing of the battle lines in a way that I have for some time considered to be inevitable as the concept of a "racially pure" Britain slips further and further into the realms of unreality. Whereas in the 1960s and 70s it was (just about) possible, without having to undergo a complete credibility bypass, to talk of repatriating "racially unassimilable" minorities, the widespread assimilation of same over the years and decades that have followed has consigned the aspirations of the race freaks to the margins even within their own company.

Instead the argument that minorities will be "welcome" (read "tolerated") just so long as they "integrate into British culture and society" (undefined) emerges as an ostensibly more reasonable option and, I suspect, one that may resonate with the not inconsequential "I'm not racist but..." tendency in our society.

So why should minorities not "become British"? Why should they not accept "our" ways, and adopt them henceforth as their ways? What, to put it bluntly, is wrong with "Cultural Nationalism"?

The first and most obvious worry of course arises from the pedigree of the new party that heralds the concept. It is a breakaway from the unquestionably racist BNP, led and populated by people who had joined an unquestionably racist party to begin with. The objections cited by the rebels towards the BNP leadership throughout their campaign to wrest the party from Nick Griffin have centred not around any dissatisfaction with BNP policy but instead around internal issues such as nepotism and financial probity.

It is possible, of course, for an entire organisation or a faction within an organisation to change fundamentally. The National Front was doing it all the time throughout the 1980s, moving seamlessly from one ideological fad to another, albeit always within the confines of a race-focused overview that remained unshaken. The Social Democrats broke away from a Labour Party that was too left-wing, then merged with most of the Liberals to become the Liberal Democrats who now shun Labour for being too right-wing. There's nowt so queer as folk, especially in politics.

But the move towards "Cultural Nationalism" is not a clean break from racism in the way that I and others who have been where I have been and seen what I have seen would recognise. Rather it is merely a movement towards a more populist expression of racism in a form with which those who would baulk at the purist pretensions of National Socialism would identify.

There is nothing wrong, of course, with all our citizens sharing and celebrating a common British identity. I wrote about such a thing here over two years ago on Walk Away's sister blog, A Community In Action. But that identity arises from our rich diversity as a nation, not from the forced submission of myriad cultures to the one.

I find myself wondering exactly what it is that "Cultural Nationalism" requires of minorities that they might become "like us". Like whom exactly? Like white people?

And just how far is this requirement supposed to go? Is everybody required to eat English food, wear English clothes, adopt "English" religious beliefs? Will accents be acceptable?

It is difficult to imagine a society in which some citizens are required by order of the state to imitate the ways of others ever being able to embrace true equality. Integration is a process that emerges organically over time in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect.

"Cultural Nationalism" moves us away from a society based upon respect and equality. It is but a Plan B for race purists whose first idea passed its sell-by date without being bought.

Government right to rebuff White History petition

A call by a group of racist petitioners to introduce a publicly-funded White History Month has been rebuffed by the government.

Responding to the petitioners the government wrote: "The Government vision is of a fair society where there are no barriers to participation or ambition based on race, colour or ethnicity. Only by giving everyone the opportunity to succeed can we build a better future for everybody in Britain.

"The Government is not responsible for Black History month. This is, rather, a community led initiative which has developed since the mid-eighties, and individual organisations take part on a voluntary basis. Its benefits are that it raises awareness of the, often unknown, Black contribution to our shared history, for example, that Africans and Asians and their descendants have been living in Britain for the last 500 years and also made a major contribution in the Second World War. By focusing on what people have in common, as well as recognising the value of diversity, we can foster a shared sense of belonging and a shared sense of the future.

"In schools, the existing National Curriculum programme of study for history requires pupils to be taught a substantial amount of British history. The Government is currently reviewing the national curriculum and has announced its intention to reduce the amount of central prescription in the way that schools teach their pupils. The Secretary of State for Education has expressed his intention to return to a more narrative approach to British History."

I'm fairly much with the government on this one. The history our children are taught in the schools and colleges of this country is already predominantly white history. This is because Britain has always had and still has a large white majority, and therefore the historical events that have shaped these islands has been largely, although by no means exclusively, determined by people who happen to have been white. There is no need for a White History Month.

However the valuable and growing contribution made by people of black and minority ethnic origin towards the British society of which we are all part has historically been overlooked. By overlooking that contribution we run the risk of alienating people of minority origin and of forcing them into a cultural ghetto in which they are compelled to make good the deficit by recognising and celebrating their own history to the exclusion of others. In other words creating a parallel historical perspective rather than an integrated one.

That is why Black History Month is important to us all, and not just to black people. Not rocket science, is it?

My Role

Somebody asked me today why I don't update this blog more frequently, and I do accept that I had been absent from duty for far too long prior to last night's posting.

All the same I see my role in the fight against the far-right not as a conveyor of everyday news that can be found elsewhere (the excellent but misnamed Lancaster Unity blog - misnamed because it clearly provides a nationwide service - being a good example), but as one who can provide a perspective from somebody who has been "on the other side" himself and who can call upon that knowledge and experience.

Knowledge, not propaganda or wishful thinking, is what sincere anti-fascists need to help them in their work. Those who don't want that knowledge cannot in my book be sincere anti-fascists.

Wherein lies the best option when one knows both devils?

I've been watching with some interest the increasingly acrimonious spat that has been developing between current BNP Chairman Nick Griffin and his challenger in a recent leadership ballot, Eddy Butler.

I have recounted in previous articles how I knew Griffin back in his National Front days. I worked closely with him on the NF's National Directorate and often saw him at close quarters. He is, or at least was, a man who has both qualities and weaknesses in great abundance.

I also knew Eddy Butler. I recall him during the mid-1980s as a fairly competent member of a fairly competent organisational team that ran the NF in Tower Hamlets, in London's East End. I often spoke at their meetings at Butler's invitation.

On a personal level I liked Butler. I can't recall recognising him at the time as being national leadership material, but I did always feel he was "one for the future". He was bright, and seemed to slot in well within the team at Tower Hamlets, a branch which was not massive in numerical terms but was considered consistent and dependable.

So I look upon the current BNP leadership squabble with a blend of voyeuristic curiosity and, as an anti-fascist, with an interest in the eventual result. Whilst no BNP at all would be the desired outcome, I am realistic enough to accept that it won't be. So a battered and divided BNP, possibly supplemented by the creation of a dead-duck rival party destined from the day of its launch for Boot Hill, would appear to me to be the next most desirable option.

The case against Griffin's leadership appears to have most of its roots in his appointment of a consultant, one Jim Dowson, to help market the BNP and raise funds in a way in which it is alleged by Griffin the party could not have managed using its own resources. Despite having procured donations and other income under Dowson's guidance on a scale that the NF of yesteryear could only have dreamed of, the party would appear to be skint. So much so, say Griffin's critics, that it is heading relentlessly for the abyss. Not unreasonably, assuming for the sake of this argument that there is some truth in the allegations, Butler's supporters are curious to know where all the cash raised as a consequence of Dowson's efforts has actually gone.

As is always the case when the far-right ventures forth into the chaos of internecine warfare a number of secondary, although in some cases even more serious, allegations have been levelled at Griffin and his entourage. Dowson himself has been accused of serious sexual assault, even rape. Lurid stories of illegal detention, the unlawful recording and bugging of members considered not to be in good standing, gratuitous suspensions of "malcontents" and suspected malcontents, accusations of being enemy infiltrators and incidents of what we in the 1980s used to describe as "petty terrorism" - threats, harassment and rumour-mongering - dominate the far-right websites as well as those of their active opponents. This is fairly much how fascist leaders facing the threat of impeachment invariably respond.

Furthermore it is claimed that Griffin has cost the BNP hundreds of thousands of pounds in court costs as a consequence of his reckless disregard for the law and its processes. An out of court settlement paid to Unilever after his bizarre inclusion of its Marmite product on the BNP Party Political Broadcast had clearly breached copyright is a case in point.

Despite clearly having a few disgruntled neo-Nazi hardliners on his team, Butler is generally considered to present a more moderate image (by BNP standards) than Griffin. Having gone to some considerable effort in recent years to repackage himself as a more touchy-feely kind of fascist - dropping compulsory repatriation and arguing the case for allowing a very limited and powerless non-white presence into BNP membership - Griffin now finds himself back in the position of having to appeal to the party's "hardliners" to support him against the encroachment of the "civic nationalism" allegedly promoted by Butler.

Butler's campaign to relieve Griffin of the party leadership was always going to be an uphill struggle under the rules laid down by the BNP's constitution, rules made even more draconian following a political sleight of hand by Griffin (and ironically supported at the time by Butler) at a recent Emergency General Meeting. Under these rules a challenge can only ever take place after the challenger has acquired the nominations of 20% of the party membership meeting the appropriate requirements according to length of service. Unsurprisingly Butler failed to achieve this, but the acrimony between the two factions (as in the NF split of 1976 the majority of the party's middle-management would appear to be behind the challenger whilst the core membership remains behind the leader) has rendered it nigh on impossible that the two sides will ever be able to bury their differences and rebuild their relationship.

And so we are faced with an almost inevitable two-party solution. Members of Butler's team seem to be in some disagreement as to whether to break away and form a new party now, to hang around and prepare for the demise of the BNP under a sea of debts before doing so, or to fight to take over ownership of the party. One thing though is certain - Griffin will not give up and call it a day so there will soon be two political factions emerging from the party formerly known as the BNP.

The question that anti-fascists everywhere will be asking is whether a BNP, or even part of a BNP, led by someone who is ostensibly "cleaner" than Griffin (who seems to be losing control in every direction in any case) would be a blessing or a bane. Is the desire for harmony across the community (and that's wherein lies my own anti-fascism, not in some sordid calculation of which scenario creates which particular party advantage) best served by a Griffin victory or a Butler victory?

Let us not forget that both sides are arguing over control of a fascist party. There is no democratic alternative, acceptable to most normal people, on the table.

For me the best outcome would be to see the two factions fight each other to an exhausted stalemate. Better still would be if such a process was to take place over a period of years rather than months, taking us to and beyond the next GLA, European and also hopefully Parliamentary elections.

In the meantime we can take a step back, watch and enjoy. In my considerable experience inter-fascist feuds are never resolved by consensus. BNP watchers should be prepared for the imminent emergence of two or even more fascist parties where once stood the BNP.