Griffin and BNP strategy

[Larry O'Hara]

Quote:
The BNP have a position Gramsci would call 'national popular', they hold it NOT because of their capability, but because of who they are, the ideological descendants of the fascists.


Larry - If you deigned to sully your pristine theses with examination of reality, you would find that the BNP are practising 'Gramscism of the Right', as illustrated yet again in Griffins article on 'Building Nationalist Strongholds' in this month's Identity. But I forgot, you don't 'do' evidence do you--far easier to make ex cathedra pronouncements devoid of reference to such. No doubt something you have never read, nor are likely to, will be dismissed as 'irrelevant', 'unhelpful', 'unnecessary', or I will be accused of talking up fascists because I dare to examine the reality of what they're up to, rather than rehash Otto Ruhle in a politically homeopathic way.

REPLY - I have read it and I am not bothered by their political practice. I said this; The BNP have a position Gramsci would call 'national popular', they hold it NOT because of their capability, but because of who they are, the ideological descendants of the fascists. And it's true. The BNP have done fekk all that deserves their level of vote.


Quote:
The media cover fascism big style because of the offensive nature of fascism for the capitalist status quo. In short, the BNP are a paper tiger at present.


How the second vacuous sentence follows from the first, only you knows. And so on. As I said, waste of time.

Larry - it is clear that it is a waste of time arguing with you cos you cannot cope with people who may disagree. Get real, live with it, deal with it, the real world is full of disagreements. You have not proved your case sufficiently. If I had read a seriously good political science article by you then you may convince me with the thoroughness of your research, the evidence and the analysis. However, you have not done so yet, or done so and made it available.

Butchers, rather than do any serious research of his own has decided to piggyback on everybody elses

1) I do not believe for one minute you have read Griffin's article--I bet you cannot produce one quote from it. You say you are "not bothered" by the political practice of fascists--in which case, why set yourself up as somebody who has any knowledge or interest in this subject? Much like a plumber who says "I'm not bothered about what's wrong with your drains, but pay me anyway". Ludicrous.

2) You have the impertinence to say I have produced nothing of value on this topic--perhaps you might care to enumerate your detailed criticisms of my PhD. Which is vailable, on inter-library loan--ever heard of it??

and so on--evidence-free, except for now you seem to be claiming to have read sources I think you haven't. Some academic credentials, eh.

 

[butchersapron]

Attica -what gaps are missing in my research? What need i have doine to be taken seriously on this issue beyond my posts?

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Attica, I am still waiting for you to substantiate the claim you have read Griffin's article in Identity--by giving a precise (page-referenced) quote. If you cannot do that (and if you can I unreservedly apologise in advance), then you have committed a fundamental error that would rightly bar you from any discussion, however pretentious, concerning academic standards. This wouldn't even be plagiarism, but in fact perjury--prove me wrong, why don't you??

 

[butchersapron]

No post on monday as well...oh fear..

 

[Larry O'Hara]

No post on monday as well...oh fear..

Have I missed something? Or are you saying he won't get it in the post on Monday? As it happens, that article is not on-line to my knowledge, and I get the impression he (therefore) hasn't read it, but is claiming nonetheless to have done so. What do you think?

 

[butchersapron]

He ain't read it, and even ordering it now won't get it here till tuesday at the very earliest..

 

[Larry O'Hara]

He ain't read it, and even ordering it now won't get it here till tuesday at the very earliest..

that's what I thought you meant! . And it really would be a shame if he compromised his personal security in order to retrospectively prove a point here--because (as you will know having read NFB 8, which I don't think Attica has despite also claiming to), somebody who complained to the BNP internet site had their details passed to Redwatch.

 

[MANCS_MURPH]

I am reminded of the incident during the American Civil War when Union General Burnside and his staff were debating how deep a ford through a river was. Could he move hs army across it? The officers were hotly argueing about how deep it was, from a distance, when they heard a shout. A young officer, George Armstrong Custer, had ridden his horse into the middle of the ford, the water level reaching to the knees of the horse.

"This is how deep the water is General".

The moral??........You tell me!

 

[Larry O'Hara]

I am reminded of the incident during the American Civil War when Union General Burnside and his staff were debating how deep a ford through a river was. Could he move hs army across it? The officers were hotly argueing about how deep it was, from a distance, when they heard a shout. A young officer, George Armstrong Custer, had ridden his horse into the middle of the ford, the water level reaching to the knees of the horse.

"This is how deep the water is General".

The moral??........You tell me!

First off, leaving aside Custer's later career, he provided an answer to the question by producing evidence (riding into the water).

Secondly, the title of this thread is about Griffin & BNP strategy. Therefore, it is not irrelevant to ask that contributors here have at least a passing knowledge of the topic.

Third, somebody (Attica) who knows nothing about the topic is on here variously
a) pretending that he does
b) dismissing arguments from others because they do not carry academic credibility--I kid you not--read it & find out
c) claiming that he doesn't need to read exactly what the BNP (& Griffin) have to say about their own strategy
d) claiming, nonetheless, to have read said strategic articles (specifically one in the August Identity) nonetheless--a claim I very much doubt, and await evidence for.

If fascism was irrelevant & of no political significance, none of this might matter (perhaps) other than as an illustration of how vainglorious know-nothings operate. However, the potential threat of fascism is real & does matter, and to misrepresent the nature of this threat is a dangerous thing to do. Or if it isn't, you tell me?

 

[Larry O'Hara]

No response yet from Attica, despite him posting on other threads since I raised the question in Post 843, of him claiming to have read something he hasn't. And this from somebody who not only claims omniscience, but attacks others for not adhering to 'Political Science' standards in their writings, and has had a go at me because scum have prevented me getting my PhD published. Marvellous!

 

[MANCS_MURPH]

However, the potential threat of fascism is real & does matter, and to misrepresent the nature of this threat is a dangerous thing to do. Or if it isn't, you tell me?

This is the point I was trying to make. If fascism is a threat (it is) then don't waste time discussing it......fight it!

If the BNP intend to thrive by setting up local community groups (projects or whatever) then oppose them by dealing more effectively with the problems of that community than the BNP can/do.

If the labour Party are guilty of......whatever.........oppose them. DO NOT vote for them on the grounds that this is the only way to keep out the BNP. Perhaps if this led to a few BNP councillors it wouldn't be too bad.

I once argued with my shop steward, I worked for the local council, that we were better off with a TORY council as an employer because the Labour council were B*****d employers but the union wouldn't stand up to them because they were all local party members. At least with a B*****d Tory council the union would fight them.

Consider this, the Labour party took the UK into Iraq and Afghanistan, not the BNP.

"Philosophers have only tried to interpret the world, the point however, is to change it"

 

[The Black Hand]

This is the point I was trying to make. If fascism is a threat (it is) then don't waste time discussing it......fight it!

If the BNP intend to thrive by setting up local community groups (projects or whatever) then oppose them by dealing more effectively with the problems of that community than the BNP can/do.

If the labour Party are guilty of......whatever.........oppose them. DO NOT vote for them on the grounds that this is the only way to keep out the BNP. Perhaps if this led to a few BNP councillors it wouldn't be too bad.

I once argued with my shop steward, I worked for the local council, that we were better off with a TORY council as an employer because the Labour council were B*****d employers but the union wouldn't stand up to them because they were all local party members. At least with a B*****d Tory council the union would fight them.

Consider this, the Labour party took the UK into Iraq and Afghanistan, not the BNP.

"Philosophers have only tried to interpret the world, the point however, is to change it"

Well said that man.

 

[butchersapron]

Attcia eyes up a potential convert, hides his own posts on this thread that often (amongst many many contradictory other things) argue the exact opposite.

 

[The Black Hand]

No response yet from Attica, despite him posting on other threads since I raised the question in Post 843, of him claiming to have read something he hasn't. And this from somebody who not only claims omniscience, but attacks others for not adhering to 'Political Science' standards in their writings, and has had a go at me because scum have prevented me getting my PhD published. Marvellous!

It is nice to see that you are waiting with baited breath for my response Larry. I must be the most in demand anarchist in britain at the moment, as my speaking dates are fully booked till next year and I am sorting one out in Leeds already

There's famous song which goes 'Only fools rush in' and I have said before to other people I do not mind keeping fools waiting but you do not come into this bracket Larry, you have a special one all of your own (and no I am not going to tell you what it is)

I have never claimed omniscience, despite how much I would like to approach it And have you rewritten your PhD for publication? If you have send me it an email, I will have a look, pass it on and I will help you publish it. No, I am not kidding.

 

[The Black Hand]

Attcia eyes up a potential convert, hides his own posts on this thread that often (amongst many many contradictory other things) argue the exact opposite.

Get real you lemon. I talk up many many people on this and many other websites. Unlike the recruiting Left I think that sort of tired neo Leninism is past it's sell by date, I prefer constituative class struggle which you do not do, do you.

 

[The Black Hand]

Attcia eyes up a potential convert, hides his own posts on this thread that often (amongst many many contradictory other things) argue the exact opposite.

Contradictions are a good thing, they work themselves out in practice. You are chasing the moon if you think a pure theory can be worked out in advance of class struggle. And that is what you do cos your interventions are always talk and no action on the web.

 

[butchersapron]

Saying one thing then the opposite is not a good thing. It's a political liability and a license to do and say anything with no responsibility or comeback. See Healy. And see why no one listens to you anymore.

 

[butchersapron]

Get real you lemon. I talk up many many people on this and many other websites. Unlike the recruiting Left I think that sort of tired neo Leninism is past it's sell by date, I prefer constituative class struggle which you do not do, do you.

Nah, i hate that shit.

 

[JHE]

I prefer constituative class struggle

You should get that sorted out, mate.

 

[The Black Hand]

1) I do not believe for one minute you have read Griffin's article--I bet you cannot produce one quote from it. You say you are "not bothered" by the political practice of fascists--in which case, why set yourself up as somebody who has any knowledge or interest in this subject? Much like a plumber who says "I'm not bothered about what's wrong with your drains, but pay me anyway". Ludicrous.

2) You have the impertinence to say I have produced nothing of value on this topic--perhaps you might care to enumerate your detailed criticisms of my PhD. Which is vailable, on inter-library loan--ever heard of it??

and so on--evidence-free, except for now you seem to be claiming to have read sources I think you haven't. Some academic credentials, eh.

Larry said this - "Fascists do not even need a majority to seize power, as Weimar showed." But that was many moons ago and a completely different state, there is no way that Weimar can be compared to 20th century UK.

Larry sed "the BNP are practising 'Gramscism of the Right', as illustrated yet again in Griffins article on 'Building Nationalist Strongholds' in this month's Identity."

In reply I said "I have read it and I am not bothered by their political practice. I said this; The BNP have a position Gramsci would call 'national popular', they hold it NOT because of their capability, but because of who they are, the ideological descendants of the fascists. And it's true. The BNP have done fekk all that deserves their level of vote."

The 'it' I was referring to is the first one of the 2 constructions in your sentance I have italicised, you are right I haven't read Griffins latest article in Identity and I am still not bothered.

What I do know is that the BNP are really only just beginning in terms of strategy and size, if they are trying to build a Gramscianism of the right their attempts at cultural leadership so far are shite. Take the debacle of 'Solidarity' - the fascist 'trade union', a mixture of cock ups and fantasy so far. That is why I have said I am not bothered as yet about their political practice. That is not to say that I am not concerned about the BNP, indeed I am in discussions about it in the north at present.

I said you haven't produced anything publically of any depth that would qualify as political science, if you have I haven't been aware of it, and I will read it when it comes out. Your PhD does not count because it is 1 copy available by interlibrary loan, there is no way that can be called 'publically available'. It is 'available' and 'public' but 10 people will not read it in a year even if they jump through all the hoops and it gets returned on time, which to my mind does not deserve the label publically available because if one person has it nobody else in the public can get it!!

Compared to you I am only beginning my theoretical journey concerning fascism I agree, but it is one that I will continue to monitor and speaking at an academic conference (to acclaim I might add) about the subject does qualify me to talk about it. Certainly the debate at academic conferences is better theoretically than at anarchist ones, and I do try to encourage the collective raising of standards in all spheres.

 

[butchersapron]

Lots of waffle to cover up the fact that no, you hadn't read it and yet claimed that you had. You're a disgrace at the minute mate. Sort yourself out.

 

[The Black Hand]

Saying one thing then the opposite is not a good thing. It's a political liability and a license to do and say anything with no responsibility or comeback. See Healy. And see why no one listens to you anymore.

Well you should stop doing it!

I believe in responsibility and comeback, far more so than the fly by nights at Limpcok for example. When I post I think aloud, and I do not see why this pub talk is problematic. The web is like the pub, if you want to read my academic serious writings you can, there is a difference, however I at least add some style to my webchat.

My ideas have associative logic, and the theories I use are time served and well developed. I do not care what twats who would say such a thing as this "And see why no one listens to you anymore" think, they do not deserve any time from me at all. The construction in some peoples eyes of me as an 'outsider' is ignorant, stupid, and many other things beside.

What I will say is this, all the time served comrades I respect I am on good terms with, and I have good relations with them; it's only the twats at Limpcok and people like you who say those pathetic things.

 

[The Black Hand]

Lots of waffle to cover up the fact that no, you hadn't read it and yet claimed that you had. You're a disgrace at the minute mate. Sort yourself out.

Fekk off - sort yourself out you lowest of the low disgrace. It is plain you do not understand plain English then.

There were 2 possibilities in what Larry said, I prioritised what I thought was more important politically. Larry and you chose to prioritise the other cos you can score political cheapshot point off it, and you are cheap.

In short, it is you who are being disingenuous about your concern, again.

 

[butchersapron]

Well you should stop doing it!

I believe in responsibility and comeback, far more so than the fly by nights at Limpcok for example. When I post I think aloud, and I do not see why this pub talk is problematic. The web is like the pub, if you want to read my academic serious writings you can, there is a difference, however I at least add some style to my webchat.

My ideas have associative logic, and the theories I use are time served and well developed. I do not care what twats who would say such a thing as this "And see why no one listens to you anymore" think, they do not deserve any time from me at all. The construction in some peoples eyes of me as an 'outsider' is ignorant, stupid, and many other things beside.

What I will say is this, all the time served comrades I respect I am on good terms with, and I have good relations with them; it's only the twats at Limpcok and people like you who say those pathetic things.

Shut up about libcom. You're being a daft obsessive. I've got nothing to with libcom, i've not posted there in 3 or 4 years, i dissascoiated from them some time ago - believe it or not, i've come to the position that you're a joke with no politics or understanding of reality all by myself.

 

[butchersapron]

Fekk off - sort yourself out you lowest of the low disgrace. It is plain you do not understand plain English then.

There were 2 possibilities in what Larry said, I prioritised what I thought was more important politically. Larry and you chose to prioritise the other cos you can score political cheapshot point off it, and you are cheap.

In short, it is you who are being disingenuous about your concern, again.

Nope, only one thing that could possibly be 'read' in your reply. There's nothing else open to being 'read'. Please, stop this idiocy.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

The BNP have done fekk all that deserves their level of vote

In which case, presuming they do do 'fekk all' we might have to worry...

you are right I haven't read Griffins latest article in Identity and I am still not bothered.

An admission de facto of what to normal people is known as a lie. Fair enough.

What I do know is that the BNP are really only just beginning in terms of strategy and size, if they are trying to build a Gramscianism of the right their attempts at cultural leadership so far are shite. Take the debacle of 'Solidarity' - the fascist 'trade union', a mixture of cock ups and fantasy so far.

There are different interpretations that can be put on Solidarity, suffice to say it is only one of various 'fronts'. To say BNP strategy is "only just beginning" is bizarre--they have existed since 1982 & were on a learning curve even before Griffin took over in 1999. A great pity you haven't read the Griffin article you earlier claimed to--for it deals strategically with precisely the question of how the BNP broadens its base by non-electoral activities in order to bolster electoral interventions.

I am not bothered as yet about their political practice. That is not to say that I am not concerned about the BNP, indeed I am in discussions about it in the north at present.

How one can be in fruitful discussions about something you know little or nothing about and are not even bothered by is a philosophical conundrum a mere mortal like myself cannot resolve. At the very least I would concede that for various complex reasons the BNPs electoral showing in the North East has been comparatively poor--although they have established themselves as virtually the only meaningful opposition electorally.

I said you haven't produced anything publically of any depth that would qualify as political science, if you have I haven't been aware of it, and I will read it when it comes out. Your PhD does not count because it is 1 copy available by interlibrary loan, there is no way that can be called 'publically available'. It is 'available' and 'public' but 10 people will not read it in a year even if they jump through all the hoops and it gets returned on time, which to my mind does not deserve the label publically available because if one person has it nobody else in the public can get it!!

To say the above is arrogant shite nowhere near encapsulates it--having had direct malign intervention in relatiion to 5 publishers by Searchlight scum to prevent me getting published in book-form on this topic, you have the impertinence to blame me for this not happening. Ludicrous at best. The interesting question I suppose, is whether you agree with my strategic characterisation of how the Griffin strategy has built on lessons he learnt from his time in the Official NF, especially the formative 1986-90 period. Or if you don't, why not? I (again) suspect you haven't read it--in which case it really is poor form for somebody bandying the term 'political science' about to justify their lack of reading academic sources because they are only available on inter-library loan. No reason why you should read it of course--save for the fact that I was awarded my PhD precisely because, in the thesis, I demonstrated a grasp of that very thing (political science) you claim I have produced nothing worth-while in--leaving aside the canard about 'public availability'.

Compared to you I am only beginning my theoretical journey concerning fascism I agree, but it is one that I will continue to monitor and speaking at an academic conference (to acclaim I might add) about the subject does qualify me to talk about it. Certainly the debate at academic conferences is better theoretically than at anarchist ones, and I do try to encourage the collective raising of standards in all spheres.

Being merely mortal, one can only marvel at the above.

Finally though, credit where credit is due to Butcher's Apron, who has indefatigably pursued the commendable if intricate task of pinning Dr Attica down very effectively in this thread, for all who can follow reasoned argument. Too often, threads here can descend into pointless exercises infested with trolling gangs: here, BA has shown a grasp of logic and discourse light years ahead of his protagonist.

 

[The Black Hand]

Shut up about libcom. You're being a daft obsessive. I've got nothing to with libcom, i've not posted there in 3 or 4 years, i dissascoiated from them some time ago - believe it or not, i've come to the position that you're a joke with no politics or understanding of reality all by myself.

Libcom are the joke with no politics nor understanding of reality - I have never taken you seriously cos you are one of those strange ultra left know it alls who are never based in practical reality. Joker.

 

[The Black Hand]

Nope, only one thing that could possibly be 'read' in your reply. There's nothing else open to being 'read'. Please, stop this idiocy.

You are the one who is denying reality in this case, mine is an objective reading and yours is subjective blustering. Quite why you spend so much time having a go at me is difficult to fathom. Perhaps it is to avoid political practice and praxis, it certainly looks like it.

Larry sed "the BNP are practising 'Gramscism of the Right', as illustrated yet again in Griffins article on 'Building Nationalist Strongholds' in this month's Identity."

There are 2 constructions in what Larry said here, I have italicised them. There was a choice in what to prioritise, the former (the more politically important), or the latter, which an anti fascist fetishist would prioritise 'cos they have it all sorted'. I chose the former, you continue to choose the latter.

It is you who are being disingenuous about your concern, again.

 

[The Black Hand]

Larry sed; "There are different interpretations that can be put on Solidarity, suffice to say it is only one of various 'fronts'. To say BNP strategy is "only just beginning" is bizarre--they have existed since 1982 & were on a learning curve even before Griffin took over in 1999. A great pity you haven't read the Griffin article you earlier claimed to--for it deals strategically with precisely the question of how the BNP broadens its base by non-electoral activities in order to bolster electoral interventions."

I never claimed to have read Griffins article - you have no proof. Please photocopy the article, send me it and then I will read it. I will comment on it then.

Why I said 'only just beginning' was to emphasise that they are currently completely marginal, they have no political existence beyond their in crowd. The RWB is a joke, like the rest of their attempts at politics. They are small and full of reactionary cranks, though the chairmans blog said they recruited one guy from Rhodesia with ability so lets not write them off completely A paper tiger is one that looks big but really have no substance, and the BNP do lack substance, it can easily be crushed. That is not to say that it will be though, although anti fascists should aim to rather than blather on about irrelevances about 'how well they are doing'. Hahahahahahhahahahhaha

 

[The Black Hand]

Larry sed; "Finally though, credit where credit is due to Butcher's Apron, who has indefatigably pursued the commendable if intricate task of pinning Dr Attica down very effectively in this thread, for all who can follow reasoned argument. Too often, threads here can descend into pointless exercises infested with trolling gangs: here, BA has shown a grasp of logic and discourse light years ahead of his protagonist."

Fekk off Larry, just cos he's mounted you from behind doesn't give him any ability, his logic is boring and his discourse basic, he's neither done nor said anything interesting. Get real.