Sean Gabb: Defending the Rights of the BNP

It Happened There (3): Court Cripples British National Party For Being Too, Well, British

[Peter Brimelow writes: The Orwellian news that a British political party is being forced in the name of “equality” to admit members who oppose its principles got me thinking about another recent victim of what Roland Huntford called “The New Totalitarians”: American Renaissance and its disrupted attempts to hold its biannual conference. So I called AR Editor Jared Taylor and asked what was happening. Answer: nothing—no police inquiries into the left’s death threats, no outrage or even news reports in the Main Stream Media or  Establishment “conservative” and libertarian (!) outlets. (We hope to publish an update from Jared soon.) Diversity may be strength, but clearly it is not equal protection of the law.]

By Sean Gabb

On the most charitable view, Britain has, in recent years, become the world’s largest open air lunatic asylum. You only need open a newspaper to see the evidence—someone arrested for defending his life or home against attack; anti-terror laws used to stop the carrying of hairdryers in public; employers told not to advertise for “reliable” workers, so as not to discriminate against the unreliable.

And so it goes on. The stories almost jump off the page. Some of these may be touched up for a market that is greedy for them. Others may not bear much scrutiny. But enough are true to let people realize that this country has, over the past generation, become a very strange and perhaps a frightening place.

This strange and frightening quality, though, is not the product of insanity. The belief that our leaders have gone even barking mad, if worrying, is preferable to the truth—which is that, regardless of their party affiliations, they have, since at least 1960, been working for the total destruction of Britain as a country and the enslavement of its people.

As evidence for this, look at the way in which the British National Party has been treated.

For those unfamiliar with British politics, the BNP is this country’s most important white nationalist party. It denounces mass immigration and multi-culturalism, and the Politically Correct censorship and persecution that have been used to smother opposition. In the past few years, it has won elections to local representative bodies, and has two seats in the Parliament of the European Union. It may also, in the next few months, win a seat in the British Parliament.

The response of the British ruling class has been wholly rational. Given that these people want a police state and a population too Balkanized along racial and religious lines to offer any concerted resistance, they cannot tolerate a party like the BNP. Before 1999, when Nick Griffin became its leader, the BNP was broadly a national socialist organization. In those days, it had limited electoral appeal, and could safely be ignored, or sometimes held up for ridicule or execration. Now that Mr. Griffin has changed its core ideology, the party is an increasingly credible threat. Therefore, it must be destroyed.

During the past few years, it has been made illegal for members of the BNP to be policemen or prison workers. It is proposed that they should be prevented from working with children. Membership lists have been stolen. Many of those on the lists have come under pressure. Mr. Griffin himself was put on trial under our new hate crime laws for calling Islam—in a private meeting infiltrated by a media spy“a wicked, vicious faith”. If convicted, he would have faced seven years in prison: after two trials, he was acquitted.

The main effort now is to destroy the BNP from within. Not surprisingly, its rules always confined membership to indigenous Caucasians. But a U.K.  Government body called the  Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) decided in 2009 that this rule broke the Race Relations Act 1976 (as amended), and took the party to court.

Needless to say, the EHRC had done nothing about, for example, the various black police organizations, which confined membership to black people. Indeed, the EHRC has never responded to one complaint of discrimination by these associations against white people. Then again, starting with its head, West Indian-descended Trevor Phillips, the EHRC is filled with supporters and nominees of the ruling Labour Party. Its whole function is to hound enemies of the New Labour ruling class through the courts.

Quite obviously, the prosecution of the BNP was not intended to promote “racial equality” as this might reasonably be defined. Its purpose was to destroy. According to the Blog of Operation Black Vote,

Nic Careem, [Email him] a former Labour activist from Camden in north London, who is now with the Conservatives, said he originally argued that black and Asian people should join the BNP en mass [sic] to cause chaos and expose the extent of racism inside the party of Nick Griffin.”

In other words, the BNP is to be flooded with non-whites, who will then use further legal action—assuming the internal structures of the party are insufficient—to destroy it.

The courts forced Mr. Griffin to drop the restriction on membership. The BNP’s first non-white member was an elderly Sikh opponent of Islamic fundamentalism.

However, Mr. Griffin did impose two conditions on new members to block flooding attempts. First, he ruled that prospective members should be visited in their homes by BNP officials, to see if they were suitable for membership. Second, all members were required to declare support for “continued creation, fostering, maintenance and existence” of an indigenous British race, and action towards “stemming and reversing” immigration.

This second rule seems to have been used to stop a rich Pakistani called Mo Chaudry from joining. He had said he would join the party to fight them from the inside. [Asian businessman fights to join BNP, Channel 4 News, March 12 2010]

This did not suit the EHRC. It took the BNP to court again, arguing that the requirement amounted to indirect racial discrimination.

Last Friday, 12th March 2010, Paul Collins, the most senior County Court Judge in London, agreed with the EHRC. He outlawed the requirement for home visits, saying that this might lead to intimidation—though admitting that there was no evidence it ever had. He also outlawed the requirement to declare support for party principle and policy. The Judge said:

“I hold that the BNP are likely to commit unlawful acts of discrimination within section 1b Race Relations Act 1976 in the terms on which they are prepared to admit persons to membership under the 12th addition of their constitution”. [New BNP membership rules judged to be biased, Manchester Evening News, March 12, 2010]

The basis for this reasoning, the Judge claimed, is that, while no BNP policy breaks the law, no non-white person could support these policies without compromising their “personal sense of self-worth and dignity as a member of their racial group”.

And so the BNP is now required to accept members regardless of whether they agree with BNP policy.

Nick Griffin was forced on the spot to change his party’s membership criteria, or face jail for himself and forfeiture of party assets.

Of course, this is a bizarre ruling. In the first place, the claim that non-whites cannot support the policies of the BNP is untrue in fact. Some do. It is also patronizing for any outsider to tell people how they should view their “personal sense of self-worth and dignity as a member of their racial group”. That is properly a matter for every individual to decide for himself.

In the second place, the principle stated by Judge Collins leads to absurdity. If I am a white supremacist, I will be deterred from joining Unite Against Fascism, because I shall be expected to support policies contrary to my own sense of my “self-worth” and “dignity”.  If I am a devout Christian, I will be deterred from becoming a Moslem, because I shall be required to say that Mohammed is the Prophet of God. If I am a devout Moslem, I will be deterred from becoming a Christian, because I shall be required to believe that Christ was the Son of God. If the principle enunciated by Judge Collins is to be consistently applied, all these groups must be compelled to accept their opponents.

But the principle will not be consistently applied. As in Zimbabwe, the British courts are increasingly creatures of the ruling party. The Judge had no choice but to rule as he did.

Britain is no longer a free country. It is a police state, in which freedom of speech is being narrowed to allow nothing more than polite disagreement with the authorities over things not regarded as central to the 1997 New Labour Revolution—and in which freedom of association means nothing at all.

Within the next few years, it is likely that the BNP will be banned. This may be an honest ban, in the sense that the party is directly outlawed by Act of Parliament. But, more likely, all candidates will be forced to take an oath of loyalty to the established order before they can stand for election. Any candidate who does falsely swear support for the creation and fostering of “diversity, and who is elected, will then face being unseated and prosecuted the moment he opens his mouth.

For the moment, however, the BNP can be flooded by its political opponents. This may be enough to finish the party as a threat. It will not happen in time to prevent the party from fighting its campaign in the general election that must be held within the next few months. But Mr. Griffin was presented the other day with a legal bill variously estimated at between £60,000 and £100,000—is it any coincidence that this money must be handed over just weeks before a general election, and by a party that is already short of money?

Of course, all of this scandalous.

What I also find scandalous is that so few people other than supporters of the BNP are prepared to speak out against it. I am a libertarian, not a white nationalist. I have never voted for the BNP or any similar party. And I seem to be the only person of my kind, and with any degree of prominence in my country, who is willing to complain.

What is being done to the BNP is unfair in itself, and sets a frightening precedent. We have now reached a point in Britain where no one can truly claim to believe in freedom of speech or freedom of association unless he is willing to stand up in public for the right of Nick Griffin and the British National Party to speak their minds and to organize in support of what they believe.

Dr. Sean Gabb [Email him] is a writer, academic, broadcaster and Director of the Libertarian Alliance in England. His monograph Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back is downloadable here. For his account of the Property and Freedom Society’s 2008 conference in Bodrum, Turkey, click here. For his address to the 2009 PFS conference, “What is the Ruling Class?”, click here; for videos of the other presentations, click here.

39 responses to “Sean Gabb: Defending the Rights of the BNP

  1. Paul Robinson

    You’re quite right.

    I haven’t watched BBC’s “Question Time” for the last 25 years or so, for the sake of my blood pressure! However, given the hue and cry following Nick Griffin’s appearance, I relented, and watched that particular “show” online.

    I knew that the BBC would pack the audience (they always did), but found the “lynch mob” atmosphere of the programme quite sickening. I suppose it does at least show that the ruling class are rattled – they’re prepared to use every trick in the book short of banning the BNP outright. They are employing similar “dirty tricks” against UKIP – you’re only allowed to donate funds to a political party if that parties views are “allowed” by the establishment.

    What is to be done? Libertarians aren’t losing the argument – there doesn’t seem to BE an argument – certainly not one that the establishment is willing to engage in.

  2. “What is to be done? Libertarians aren’t losing the argument – there doesn’t seem to BE an argument – certainly not one that the establishment is willing to engage in.”
    One cannot expect a crook or conman who is stealing your money to be reasonable or engage in discussion.
    Of course there is no argument. There is only theft. Of money; liberty; commonsense and logic; truth; reality.
    Indeed, as Dr Gabb says, an “open air lunatic asylum” is the situation that prevails as the powers-that-be bend logic ever further in order to accommodate their requirements.
    If the people are not willing to see it and to do something about it then a prison/lunatic asylum is what they will get.
    Neither is it any use to engage in ridiculous defiant postures. Or engage in silly office politics. Or power plays.
    We are sliding towards totalitarianism and we will get there unless liberty gets a new lease, somehow. Dan Hannan gets to lead the Conservative Party? The party that has been totally deceived into cocking up their election campaign. (I wonder who the advisers were that choreographed that and how they now hold their deceptive heads?)
    But what, indeed, is to be done?
    The most important thing is to engage people in a logical awareness of what is happening.
    This becomes increasingly difficult as the separation between reality and the mind-manipulated norm grows. But it is not impossible. It depends on what is truly, really important to us.
    Reach people with simple honesty. Reality. The truth.
    A practical step?
    Based on my somewhat dated experience I would go all out with some very straight, direct, hard hitting, honest, leaflets. Several million of them into the hands of supporters throughout the country.

  3. Paul Robinson

    “One cannot expect a crook or conman who is stealing your money to be reasonable or engage in discussion.”

    Yes, I suppose you’re right. I still find it hard to shake the notion that our “ruling class” are reasonable when the evidence (though filtered by the media in general, and the BBC in particular) clearly suggests otherwise.

    “Neither is it any use to engage in ridiculous defiant postures.”

    Does that include voting UKIP, and not Conservative, as Dr Gabb suggests?

  4. Voting UKIP will achieve no change in government that would make any rral difference: it would merely split the Tory vote in marginals, letting Gordon in more likelyer.

    Voting Tory will give us a year, or if we are lucky, three to four years, in which the State will not quite have the guts to order the Police to… …Fire On Their Own People.

  5. The critical time coming is now.

  6. I suppose the best thing would be to get a solid vote behind a resolute Tory Party (led by Dan Hannan, or?) but the Tories have been duped away from anything like that. UKIP splits the conservative vote? I suppose it does. What does one do? Probably the better of bad options is to go with the Conservatives, which is what Sean Gabb suggests in his previous post on this subject. I think.
    But. If I was in a position to do anything I think I would concentrate on getting through to as many people as possible the simple truth of what is happening to Britain (and the world, in fact.)
    Nothing complicated or controversial. Perhaps some very clear illustrations that would be received by your average half brainwashed person in the street that will make the light bulb go on as they see what is going on. An Enlightenment!
    Whatever else it would do, that would help pull things towards the conservative side. Or rather, away from the side where everything is just sliding off the cliff.
    Just simple, honest presentation of truth.

  7. Patrick Harris

    OK everyone, do as David Davis advocates, forget your principles, vote for a party you despise, a party you want to see cast down, a party that will offer but deliver no change what so ever.
    Beware of “cast iron” promises, go on compromise yourself and your beliefs.
    Don’t vote to keep a party out, vote for the party that follows closest, your idea of how a government should behave and carry out business.

  8. I agree with David. We both despise the Tories, but have no choice but to take a sick bag into the polling booth and vote for these people. We have had 13 years since 1997 to come up with a better option. We have now run out of time. As David says, we have reached the point between a gang of politicians who will relish ordering their police to shoot on us, and another gang that may have just enough regard for the old ways not to do that.

  9. Paul Robinson

    I will have to think VERY carefully between now and polling day. I vowed, in 1992, not to vote Conservative again until they promised to withdraw from the EU.

    They still haven’t done it – it’s pretty clear to me that the leadership are still completely pro-EU, and even if “cast-iron Dave” were to promise EU withdrawal tomorrow, I’m not sure I’d believe it at this late stage. However, I do see the risk in voting UKIP – the thought of the current lot governing in perpetuity is, at the very least, depressing.

    Yes indeed, much thought required!

  10. We really are into sick bag territory. Of course, if you live in a constituency where the Conservatives have no chance of defeating Labour, that removes any duty to vote for them.

  11. Make no mistake.

    THIS government, this junta of scumbag deliberately-wicked and objective-driven, planned-Stalinists WILL, I repeat WILL order the Police to open fire on us if we decided to protest in public.

    They WILL give the order, if this was to happen.

    And the Police WILL open fire. We all know about Britain’s Police by now, what sort of people they have become – and be under no illusions about what sort of individual Policemen have been put into whatever the “armed” section is now called.

    All of you, and I, all know in our hearts that this is sadly so. As Sean says, we have run out of time.

    And I fully expect that the bullets to be used will be round-nosed types, and that the guns are fully-automatic. Also, there will probably be no “firing over the heads of the crowd” in the first instance – it will be at them. The result will serve admirably to quell any further opposition instantly, and the PR will be handled by Peter Mandelson. Just watch (but I hope we don’t have to.) This sort of event would of course have been expertly handled in 1940 by the “Ministry of Information” in the same way, had Hitler successfully invaded and there had been “local uprisings” against “managed occupation” in places like Lancashire, Yorkshire and Cornwall.

    We ought to be planning for the worst case, ought we not?

  12. To Paul:-

    I don’t think that the EU is anywhere near being our main problem right now. True, it is a recreation in pink-chiffon-bra-and-knickers of the Fourth Reich, and it’s true that in the Third one it would have been Vichy (or indeed ordinary) French managerialism operating under instructions from German Planners.

    However, its concerns are different from those of the home-grown British GramscoStaliNazis who are now oppressing us for the crime of being an individual and indigenous nation with a defined culture which is not post-democratic or post-national or even post-JudeoChristian.

    The fact that the Tories have done nothing worthwhile to get us out of the EU when they could have done it for no money and huge profit may (I say “may”, I do not know) turn out a blessing if it starts to interdict things attempted by the British PuritaNazis like (for a trivial example) minimum pricing on alcohol products.

    We might even live to thank the EU for derailing its worse things to come, but I do not know.

  13. Paul Robinson

    The trouble is, our current Gauleiters use the EU as the excuse for most of their excesses; “it’s not our fault, we have to do it – EU regulations, don’t y’ know.” Remove the EU from the equation, and they’ll have to be a damn sight more creative (which may or may not be a good thing – Mandelson, etc.)

    I think you’re right that the “critical time coming is now”, I would just ask what are we going to do with the extra time bought by electing a notionally Conservative goverment? Cameron is so wet, that after he’s been trashed by Labour, and what remains of their creatures in the unions, he’ll last a couple of years at most, and then we’ll be back to square one again, with someone maybe even worse than Brown and his gang.

  14. Voting for your enemies is bad tactics and bad strategy. Those doing so are supporting authoritarians who don’t give a fig for the liberties we espouse.

    Thatcher gave us the police state. New Labour pandered to it, giving it arbitrary and discretionary powers. I don’t see Cameron’s people condemning Thatcher’s police state, shunning its promoters or promising to roll back the encroachments rolled out over the years. Tory MPs should know better, but they don’t give much evidence to place any hope in their doing so. Vote to avoid the worst possible harm.

    If you want to see how much worse it can be, you need look no further than the US “Criminal Justice System” (sic). You’re twenty times more likely to end up in prison; sentences are much longer; and the prisons are appalling. Especially the privately run prisons.



  15. Why isn’t anyone speaking out? Ideological hegemony, or- more relevant to anglo-politics, moral hegemony.

    The key innovation of the Victorian Era was the invention of political correctness in its modern form. It is not a recent thing. It is not an invention of the Left in the 1960s, or of Antonio Gramsci or of the Frankfurt School. They merely identified what it is, analysed it, and codified a political strategy to use it against their enemies (a strategy anyone can use).

    Political Correctness is the concept of the literally “unspeakable”. Victorian social reformers realised that to control a nation they had to control the morals of that nation. To do that they had to develop a system of intense peer pressure which would keep everyone “on message” with the new ideology. By turning everyone into a policeman, you create social policing without any need for brutes in peaked caps. You just make opposition literally unspeakable and thus unthinkable. You make opposition not a matter of independence and pride, but a matter of shame.

    The political correctness of today that conservatives rail against is only a different list of what is unspeakable. Patriotism is out and internationlism/multiculturalism is in, for instance. But it is because we live in a society of intense morality- a type of secularised “sharia”- and have done since the nineteenth century, that nobody speaks out against the persecution of the BNP, because to do so is immoral and thus unspeakable. Unless we can develop a strategy to dismantle the moral hegemony (subversion of it to our ends is not an option, because individualism inherently opposes societal moral unity; any group seeking to change the rules can use a “Gramscian” strategy, but individualists actually oppose rulesets so cannot use one effectively) the current situation will continue. It may be possible to return to some form of the previous moral ruleset (no “winter drawers on” on the BBC) but that is no use to us. We can only succeed by sufficiently dismantling the moral hegemony that a state is reached where e.g. abolishing the BBC becomes obvious to all since it is, and has been since its creation a hegemonic creature. Etc.

    So far we don’t have that strategy and intense moralism is the primary defining characteristic of our society, and it is what defines the “PC” agenda. Thinking caps on, chaps.

    As to voting Conservative. Well, do it if you like but it’s an insane “strategy”. Voting Tory is a vote for continuation and intensification of the moral hegemony; it is a vote for the same moral discourse. It is a vote to be oppressed. The idea of taking revenge on Gordon Brown is rather childish. He is simply a reflection of the hegemonic class, and removing him, a rather minor cog in the machine, will achieve nothing. Under the progressive system, politicians don’t make policies. They do as they are told by the “imams” in the policy-forming class of academics, pressure groups, NGOs and other opinion forming bodies. The parliament clamps down on drinking because it has been told to do so, it clamps down on “racists” because it has been told to do so. Gordon Brown and his gurning cohorts don’t invent the policies they impose; they are mere functionaries, and the Boy David won’t invent the policies he imposes either. He, like Broon, will merely make into law that which the councils of bishops in the policy-forming class tell him to make.

    At this point in the game, there’s virtually nothign we can do. We can’t hope for a quick reversal, because that would take a miracle. But one small thing we can do is not give the bastards our support. A bloody nose for the Tories will be more useful to us than a Tory win. It will at least support the assertion that Sean made on the televisual wireless that “the voters are going on strike”; that the greater mass of the population are disconnected from teh Ayatollahs.

    Votes for UKIP, the LPUK, even the BNP, or a simple abstention will have more effect than a wasted vote for the Tories, and will have the additional effect of encouraging counter-hegemonic parties and political groupings that they have a constituency (which is why I’d favour voting LPUK (if possible) or UKIP, rather than for the national socialists or abstaining. A Tory Party that loses the election due to votes clearly against it and its policies will have some small benefit in the long term, whereas a Tory win will have none. Yes, it will be hell under another Labour term, but it will be equally hellish under the Tories too, especially as they will be basking by the pool of their honeymoon.

    We need to dismantle the Victorian social ideology. We can’t do that quickly, but it’s the only goal worth pursuing. In the meantime, we can make a start by not continuing to vote for our oppressors.

  16. That is a really first rate post. It is the first good reason I’ve seen for not voting Tory. I may eventually disagree with you on this, but I think your analysis is spot on.

  17. ‘Beyond the pale’ was no Victorian invention that made Japanese generals fall upon their swords.

  18. Sean-

    that’s very kind of you. I think the aspect of using our votes as a vote of confidence for counter-hegemonic parties is significant. No, they can’t win, but we can encourage them to keep on keeping on.

    John B-

    Sure, every society has its moral and ideological hegemony, and trying to create/imagine a society without one is as ridiculous as trying to create a society in which people do not breathe oxygen. But the degree- the intensity- of moral hegemony certainly varies in different times and places, between societies which are intensely conformist and those which are more liberal. My argument is that the Victorian Era represents an intense intensification (ooer) of moral hegemony in Britain (particularly) and this was quite specifically done by particular- initially religious- groups.

    This particular intensifiation was, in my view, no less than a cultural revolution. I believe that one characteristic of cultural revolutions is that they effectively obliterate the “folk memory” of what existed before, such that people have a strange illusion that things have “always been this way”; hence the fact that many conservatives describe as “traditional values” a value set that was largely invented in that cultural revolutionary period.

    The cultural revolution combined a moral fervour with a particular value set that glorified- effectively sanctified- activism. We might call this “the sanctification of the busybody”. It is that which empowers our “total government”. It is the duty of the ruling class and any “moral” person to “improve” everybody else; this is the most moral thing you can do in life, and to not do so is at least amoral and generally immoral. Our oppressors are not marxists. They are missionaries. They aren’t saving us from bourgeois capitalists. They are saving us from ourselves.

    Getting back to Japan, there’s some considerable evidence that the “traditional” value set that had generals falling on their swords for failing a divine emperor was also a nineteenth century invention.

    I strongly suspect that we are all living in a strange kind of virtual reality programmed by our predecessors.

  19. Note to self: use fewer “quotes” in blog comments in “future”.

  20. I find your locating of the revolution over a hundred years before mine fascinating. I do think you underestimate the liberalism of Victorian England – not only were most rights untouched by the State, but many were enhanced. Even so, I have myself been struck by the near wiping out of folk memories during this time. Of course, part of this was due to the big population shifts caused by the industrial revolution; and much that remained was only wiped clean by the Great War. Even so, I think you are on to something. Any chance of a pamphlet on this for the LA?

  21. Spencer Whitlock

    If you have ever cherished any dreams of violent insurrection, you must abandon them. There is no way in which the Party can be overthrown. The rule of the Party is for ever. Make that the starting-point of your thoughts.

  22. I have been meaning to ask Ian B to write something formal for us for some time – either on here, which would be fine, or as a defined publication.

    This is because he did say to me some time ago that he was working on some ideas along the lines of what’s in his (admirable) long-comment above.

    Although I think he’d probably rather do it fully under his own imprimatur! But the offer stands.

  23. “…The rule of the Party is for ever…”

    That’s the myth which the USSR assiduously propagated, along with “We never make mistakes.”

    Yet the CPSU made many mistakes, and is fading into history. For ever? Such nostrums are commonly mistaken. New Labour has only the most tenuous connections with the old Labour Party.

    Historicism is a common error.


  24. Politics rules – okay?

  25. Sean and David, you’re very kind. David, you’ve asked me before and if and when I have something together, you’ll be the first to know.

    Sean, as a quick example of what has led me in this direction- I think we have to consider why, if the cultural revolution was only scant decades ago, we find identical governmental behaviours in the Victorian Era. Choosing at random, we have for instance the nationalisation of the telegraph system which set the crucial precedent of state media control, and its right to confiscate any business it chose. On the social side, we have for instance The Contagious Diseases Acts which, under the familiar guise of “public health”, were used to control prostitution and effectively labelled any unaccompanied woman in a garrison town as a prostitute, who could be arrested (though no crime had been committed), assaulted by quacks, and locked up for her own good. (We may add indeed the general Victorian mania for locking up masses of “undesirables” in institutions and colonies etc).

    These are the actions of a state whose liberalism is drastically failing, not of a robustly individualist polity. We may say that Victorian times were more liberal than ours, but if one is tobogganing down a hill, the ground is always higher behind.

    Sean, you started your book Culture War with a quote describing how, prior to 1914, a gentleman was barely aware of the state other than the post box and the policeman. That is surely true, but I suspect that the lower orders, those who were targetted by the first wave of social engineering, were rather more aware of it, as the Great and the Good sanitised them with a missionary zeal comparable to that of today.

    As such, my own mental model is not so much of a sudden cultural revolution in the past few decades, but rather of a revival of intensity in one that began in the C19, and which was temporarily distracted and divided by a marxist phase in the past century. As Paul Gottfried has shown in The Strange Death Of Marxism (and his other writings), even those calling themselves marxist these days are no more marxists than the Archbishop Of Canterbury is a Christian (though he may paradoxically be a marxist, heh), whatever they or he may call themselves. In that view, British liberalism, and the independent spirit of the British people, were broken not by foreign marxism, but by native social reformism- and that I think traces quite clearly to certain movements within Christianity.

    Never trust a quaker who gives you a house to live in, he’ll take your beer and skittles away, basically. :)

  26. Graham Davies

    Ian B, excellent posts. Hope you do decide to write some articles.

    I’d just like to add that voting Conservative, apart from being morally questionable, will not work strategically. A freshly elected Conservative government will still perpetrate the same kind of abuses that have come to typify the New Labour machine, though probably less vigorously. However, it is likely to manage the economy more shrewdly and the stability so afforded may result in a more efficient and effective regime of oppression. There is something to be said for another term or two of New Labour if its own excesses bring this cross-party revolution crashing to the ground.

    In any case, I shall vote for none of these people.

  27. Graham, thanks, and you have made an exellent point regarding the other risk of a Tory government. If they are competent (I must admit I find this hard to believe about Cameron and Osborne et al) they may make the grievous error of the Thatcher years, of reforming the state just enough to keep it working.

  28. Tony, I think Ian B refers to people like the Rowntrees of York, who built “model villages” for their workers, and that fellow who built Port Sunlight down the road from here. The Rowntrees were Quakers of course: I do not know the religious leanings of Lord Hesketh (I think it was.)

    It is very likely that the natural leanings of the inhabitants of these workers towards getting pissed on ale and cheap gin, owuld have been vigorously suppressed. The villages bristle with churches, halls and schools.

  29. The quaker comment was a bit of a throwaway, but quakers were significant among liberal reformers; as with the Rowntrees who started selling chocolate specifically to give the working man an alternative to beer, as they were temperance activists.

    Hesketh wasn’t a Quaker (so far as I can tell) but was a Christian Socialist-

    It would not do you much good if you send it down your throats in the form of bottles of whisky, bags of sweets, or fat geese at Christmas. On the other hand, if you leave the money with me, I shall use it to provide for you everything that makes life pleasant – nice houses, comfortable homes, and healthy recreation.

    -which stands almost as a mission statement of the Anglosphere Socialist movements.

  30. Sounds like some of the Nazis in their early-1930s-phase to me, Ian. Except I don’t think they wree at that stage any more concerned about housing quality – more towards the Hitler-Jugend and the Bund-Deutsche-Madel. But they did fail to stop what these two outfits got up to together in the night and in the fields…I suppose all that was left was sex.

  31. David, if you haven’t read it, GK Chesterton’s Eugenics And Other Evils is a fabulous read. He originally wrote it in 1913, then expanded it and published it in 1922 when he realised the things he was arguing against- not least socialist worship of “Prussianism”- hadn’t been swept away by the Great War.

    It’s a fascinating historical document, showing the historical development of our state by somebody there at the time- Part VII is particularly relevant. To quote-

    In short, people decided that it was impossible to achieve any of the good of Socialism, but they comforted themselves by achieving all the bad. All that official discipline, about which the Socialists themselves were in doubt or at least on the defensive, was taken over bodily by the Capitalists. They have now added all the bureaucratic tyrannies of a Socialist state to the old plutocratic tyrannies of a Capitalist State. For the vital point is that it did not in the smallest degree diminish the inequalities of a Capitalist State. It simply destroyed such individual liberties as remained among its victims. It did not enable any man to build a better house; it only limited the houses he might live in — or how he might manage to live there, forbidding him to keep pigs or poultry or to sell beer or cider. It did not even add anything to a man’s wages; it only took away something from a man’s wages and locked it up, whether he liked it or not, in a sort of money-box which was regarded as a medicine-chest. It does not send food into the house to feed the children; it only sends an inspector into the house to punish the parents for having no food to feed them. It does not see that they have got a fire; it only punishes them for not having a fireguard. It does not even occur to it to provide the fireguard.

    Now this anomalous situation will probably ultimately evolve into the Servile State of Mr. Belloc’s thesis. The poor will sink into slavery; it might as correctly be said that the poor will rise into slavery. That is to say, sooner or later, it is very probable that the rich will take over the philanthropic as well as the tyrannic side of the bargain; and will feed men like slaves as well as hunting them like outlaws.

    -that was written 23 years before Attlee and the welfare state. Social engineering preceded welfare. I think that’s very significant in understanding the collapse of liberty in the anglosphere, especially as many argue that the “nanny state” is a consequence of welfare dependency. I think it came first, and Chesterton certainly saw that.

  32. Absolutely!
    He certainly saw it coming.
    Very good point, indeed.

  33. I did read Belloc’s Servile State many years ago. I think I should read some Chesterton.

  34. I read many of the arguments for liberty, (which one can only agree with), however, those who love liberty, which must include freedom of association, freedom of speech, honest elections (where postal voting has been rigged in favour of Labour), are losing the battle. We now have a government comprised of Communists/Marxists and Stalinists. The sheer number of laws they have enacted that restrict or have eliminated our freedoms in the thirteen years they have misruled our country is evidence that they may have left the Communist party but the Communist ideology has not left them. I have come to the conclusion that the only way to reclaim our culture, traditions, English Common Law and liberties is to act in open revolt en masse. We have lost so much and we are losing what is left. Once it has gone, only civil war will recover what we once had.

  35. Spencer Whitlock

    But they have all the guns, Grumpygit. And I don’t think they’d hesitate to use them.

  36. Don’t even think it, is my thought.
    And you don’t need it.
    This war is won in the minds. It is the media you have to circumvent, not the armed forces!

  37. BNP (Black National Party)

    The BNP (Black National Party) has been created to expedite the work of the Race Equality Secret Service (RESS).

    The BNP (Black National Party) gets stronger as THE BNP gets weaker.

  38. I am a BNP member, hiss ,hiss. I dont veiw my thinking as being nazism or facisism,all I believe in is MATHS , NUMBERS, because of this I have been attacked in public, denounced at work , amd dispised, by the chattering class, in the media, not the GREEK idea of the medium, balance in all things, the letter M , with 13 letters on both sides,Tell me the clowns that rule us ,is it evil , to believe in the fact that blacks should have 50 eye colours 50 hair colours same with asians, THAT MINDKIND should be granted form in the third empire of Britain. That I should rule over us in all its forms,The liers of the 5 headed hydra that rules us wants ,to stop people , from practicing the most lethal, of all thoughts, THINKING FOR YOURSELF.