Griffin and BNP strategy

[butchersapron]

Guardin article today

That Expose The BNP is apparently UAF linked. They sent out a press release recently that was full of terrible factual mistakes, the sort of thing that allows the BNP not only off the hook but to turn the tables on those supposedly doing the exposing. Aside from the fact that the expose them model hasn't worked and cannot really provide the political alternative now required - in fact that approach has consolidated the BNP whilst offering the mainstream parties as the only way out.

That, I think, is the risk of a new anti-BNP campaign, called Expose, to be launched next week by the group Unite Against Fascism (UAF). It promises "well-researched information" to "reveal the undemocratic and racist nature of the BNP". In its press release, one of Expose's launch speakers, the Cabinet minister Peter Hain, condemns the appearance by Nick Griffin on the BBC's Question Time, calling it an "outrage" and "circus" that "boosted" the far-Right party.

"Following Griffin's appearance on Question Time, where he made openly homophobic remarks," adds the release, "two gay men – Ian Baynham in London and James Parkes in Liverpool – were killed."

In fact, the attack that killed Baynham took place almost a month before Griffin's Question Time appearance. And though James Parkes was attacked after it, he was not killed. So much for the "well-researched information".

Have a check up on venture-capital marrying tory candidate James Bethell author of that article. These aren't the people with answers and help for the w/c

 

[The Black Hand]

Rise in hate crime follows BNP council election victories, this is good research and is what people have long suspected;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/15/hate-crime-bnp-local-council-elections

 

[The Black Hand]

I like this point too;

"Debate on immigration is being suppressed?"

Probably the oldest trick in the book. The rightwing press talks about immigration every day. And yet commentators on the right maintain with a straight face that the debate on immigration is being suppressed. What they [and the BNP] actually mean is: those immigrants who don't agree with us are all bad.

 

[The39thStep]

Rise in hate crime follows BNP council election victories, this is good research and is what people have long suspected;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/15/hate-crime-bnp-local-council-elections

It may be good research but the Guardians conclusions are extremely suspect:

The Guardian has analysed data from 11 police forces covering 29 wards across England where voters have elected BNP councillors in the past six years. In eight wards reports of hate crime rose following BNP election wins despite a wider decline across the police force area. It declined in 14 wards, in line with force-wide reductions, and there was no change in four and an insignificant amount of data in three.

In less than a third of these wards where the BNP were elected did hate crime rise. Hate crime covers crime categories from disability to religous to race and I would be interested as to whether they were incidents or actual crimes.

Most people who vote BNP do so because they have been canvassed by them and in many cases the BNP are the only party that has canvassed. Of course if 'anti fascism' cannot put up a political alternative it is left with just bleating on about the BNP being racist.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Aside from the fact that the expose them model hasn't worked and cannot really provide the political alternative now required - in fact that approach has consolidated the BNP whilst offering the mainstream parties as the only way out.

Yeh your right. There is only one way to oppose fascism, build an alternative.

give up anti-fascism There is no point trying to oppose this sort of thing.

Rise in hate crime follows BNP council election victories, this is good research and is what people have long suspected;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/15/hate-crime-bnp-local-council-elections

 

[butchersapron]

How very typically dishonest of you (and with an attempted racist-type smear for good measure). There's nothing at all in that article that argues racism or racial hate should not be opposed - in fact its the central argument is that official anti-fascism has failed to be able to effectively oppose these things, that the 'expose them' model, the covert support for labour etc is leading precisely to a situation that has allowed or even helped these situations to develop (the questions about the actual research posed above to one side for now). It's an argument, in fact concerned with what develping more practialy effective ways of dealing with what you say it argues doesn't matter.

 

[TremulousTetra]

It may be good research but the Guardians conclusions are extremely suspect:



In less than a third of these wards where the BNP were elected did hate crime rise. Hate crime covers crime categories from disability to religous to race and I would be interested as to whether they were incidents or actual crimes.

Most people who vote BNP do so because they have been canvassed by them and in many cases the BNP are the only party that has canvassed. Of course if 'anti fascism' cannot put up a political alternative it is left with just bleating on about the BNP being racist.

Most people don't vote bnp, fact. Why when the media, the Tories, and new labour has spent the last 13 years as a recruiting sergeant? It's not surprising that they're doing better, it is surprising they have not done a lot better than they have given the media coverage etc.. Could the reason be most people dont vote for the BNP, be because they believe they are fascist and racist. And they have this view in no little part, due to the 'bleating' of the anti fascist?

 

[TremulousTetra]

How very typically dishonest of you (and with an attempted racist-type smear for good measure). There's nothing at all in that article that argues racism or racial hate should not be opposed - in fact its the central argument is that official anti-fascism has failed to be able to effectively oppose these things, that the 'expose them' model, the covert support for labour etc is leading precisely to a situation that has allowed or even helped these situations to develop (the questions about the actual research posed above to one side for now). It's an argument, in fact concerned with what develping more practialy effective ways of dealing with what you say it argues doesn't matter.

thread.
bollocks.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I am all for building an alternative, but it isn't simply either or.

 

[butchersapron]

Most people don't vote bnp, fact. Why when the media, the Tories, and new labour has spent the last 13 years as a recruiting sergeant? It's not surprising that they're doing better, it is surprising they have not done a lot better than they have given the media coverage etc.. Could the reason be most people dont vote for the BNP, be because they believe they are fascist and racist. And they have this view in no little part, due to the 'bleating' of the anti fascist?

So let me see -this 'bleating' has helped produce a million new fascists over the past decade or at the very least made no impact whatsoever on the process of developing these million fascists. You see, this is the heads-i-win, tails-you-lose nature of your argument. The largest, most widespread growth of the far right in British history can be dismissed simply by saying it would have been worse.

Just how much worse you think it could be you never actually say - or more accurately, you make stupid OTT pre-emptive claims before elections so that when your approach fails yet once more (and that's becoming long long list) you can say thank god that our campaign prevented them achieving that stupid never-on-the-cards performance we tried to scare you with (also know as the breakthrough? What breakthrough dismissal of steady growth and national consolidation).

And of course, if the converse happens - and it rarely does in national situations, not recently anyway, then guess what, that's down top the exact same approach working once more. It's desperate head in the sand fantasy politics.

 

[butchersapron]

thread.
bollocks.

Is this an apology for your misreading of the argument contained in the article? The attempted smear? An admission? What exactly?

 

[TremulousTetra]

So let me see -this 'bleating' has helped produce a million new fascists over the past decade or at the very least made no impact whatsoever on the process of developing these million fascists. You see, this is the heads-i-win, tails-you-lose nature of your argument. The largest, most widespread growth of the far right in British history can be dismissed simply by saying it would have been worse.

Just how much worse you think it could be you never actually say - or more accurately, you make stupid OTT pre-emptive claims before elections so that when your approach fails yet once more (and that's becoming long long list) you can say thank god that our campaign prevented them achieving that stupid never-on-the-cards performance we tried to scare you with (also know as the breakthrough? What breakthrough dismissal of steady growth and national consolidation).

And of course, if the converse happens - and it rarely does in national situations, not recently anyway, then guess what, that's down top the exact same approach working once more. It's desperate head in the sand fantasy politics.

Most people don't vote bnp, fact. Why when the media, the Tories, and new labour has spent the last 13 years as a recruiting sergeant?

Could the reason be most people dont vote for the BNP, be because they believe they are fascist and racist?

 

[tbaldwin]

So let me see -this 'bleating' has helped produce a million new fascists over the past decade or at the very least made no impact whatsoever on the process of developing these million fascists. You see, this is the heads-i-win, tails-you-lose nature of your argument. The largest, most widespread growth of the far right in British history can be dismissed simply by saying it would have been worse.

Just how much worse you think it could be you never actually say - or more accurately, you make stupid OTT pre-emptive claims before elections so that when your approach fails yet once more (and that's becoming long long list) you can say thank god that our campaign prevented them achieving that stupid never-on-the-cards performance we tried to scare you with (also know as the breakthrough? What breakthrough dismissal of steady growth and national consolidation).

And of course, if the converse happens - and it rarely does in national situations, not recently anyway, then guess what, that's down top the exact same approach working once more. It's desperate head in the sand fantasy politics.

I dont see how you can be so sure butchers. The growth of the BNP has not been stopped by the UAF etc. But you really cant be sure what effect theyve had. There are lots of people disillusioned with mainstream politics,lots who think the 3 main parties speak crap on issues like crime and immigration. Yet as RMP says most people completely reject the BNP. I dont think you can really be sure that Hope not Hate etc has not had a good effect.
I think your debate is based on your idealogical straitjacket and you try to fit facts into your theory every much as the ANL etc.

 

[The Black Hand]

A) It may be good research but the Guardians conclusions are extremely suspect:

B) In less than a third of these wards where the BNP were elected did hate crime rise. Hate crime covers crime categories from disability to religous to race and I would be interested as to whether they were incidents or actual crimes.

C) Most people who vote BNP do so because they have been canvassed by them and in many cases the BNP are the only party that has canvassed. Of course if 'anti fascism' cannot put up a political alternative it is left with just bleating on about the BNP being racist.

A) Too quick towrite it off imho.

B) Say in approx 30% of areas where BNP candidates get elected there is a rise in Hate Crime, that looks statistically significant to me. Of course, the types of crimes, every nuance etc, would provide extra information but these headline figures look significant enough by themselves.

C) Your point is? Of course the left/working class movement is in a fractured and defensive mode, pointing out that there is no widespread left able to take on the BNP doesn't win Brownie points however. What matters is actually encouraging people everywhere to take up the struggle more than they are already.

 

[The Black Hand]

I dont see how you can be so sure butchers. The growth of the BNP has not been stopped by the UAF etc. But you really cant be sure what effect theyve had. There are lots of people disillusioned with mainstream politics,lots who think the 3 main parties speak crap on issues like crime and immigration. Yet as RMP says most people completely reject the BNP. I dont think you can really be sure that Hope not Hate etc has not had a good effect.
I think your debate is based on your idealogical straitjacket and you try to fit facts into your theory every much as the ANL etc.

I agree, the Butchers Boy has no evidence.

I think, and there could be research work done on this, that there is every likelihood that the British anti fascist tradition that derives from WW2 and that is mobilised by Hope Not Hate and the Daily Mirror has had some effect.

 

[butchersapron]

Most people don't vote bnp, fact. Why when the media, the Tories, and new labour has spent the last 13 years as a recruiting sergeant?

Could the reason be most people dont vote for the BNP, be because they believe they are fascist and racist?

I've just replied commenting on the circular nature of this sort of argument - you ignored the reply in favour of drawing another circle - demonstrating my point pretty effectively.

Here's another point for you to ignore - maybe more people are voting BNP because they see their social conditions best reflected in the sort of semi-racist approach that the BNP's localist strategy relies on - in which case what is the use of hammering home in expose expose (whilst their vote/influence/reach/normalisation continues on unbated) the fact that they're racist when it's not simple racism that's driving their support? Marxists used to be able to work out that social conditions are largely behind mass phenomena like this.

Most people in this country aren't racist - they don 't need telling, that fact alone should make you question yourself and your arguments when in such circumstances a racist party develops some serious, historically unprecedented, electoral support. Maybe, just maybe it's not what you think.

 

[butchersapron]

I dont see how you can be so sure butchers. The growth of the BNP has not been stopped by the UAF etc. But you really cant be sure what effect theyve had. There are lots of people disillusioned with mainstream politics,lots who think the 3 main parties speak crap on issues like crime and immigration. Yet as RMP says most people completely reject the BNP. I dont think you can really be sure that Hope not Hate etc has not had a good effect.
I think your debate is based on your idealogical straitjacket and you try to fit facts into your theory every much as the ANL etc.

You seem rather sure of your opinion that the 'expose them' model has had some serious effect. What's your evidence? And please do try and square whatever you come up with with the historically unprecedented position the BNP has managed to develop for itself over the last decade.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I've just replied commenting on the circular nature of this sort of argument - you ignored the reply in favour of drawing another circle - demonstrating my point pretty effectively.

Here's another point for you to ignore - maybe more people are voting BNP because they see their social conditions best reflected in the sort of semi-racist approach that the BNP's localist strategy relies on - in which case what is the use of hammering home in expose expose (whilst their vote/influence/reach/normalisation continues on unbated) the fact that they're racist when it's not simple racism that's driving their support? Marxists used to be able to work out that social conditions are largely behind mass phenomena like this.

Most people in this country aren't racist - they don 't need telling, that fact alone should make you question yourself and your arguments when in such circumstances a racist party develops some serious, historically unprecedented, electoral support. Maybe, just maybe it's not what you think.

You may reply, but you don't anwer the questions. Or,,,,,,,,, for that matter, seem to read what rmp tb tbh are saying.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Another thing that bugs me about this "you can only build an alternative" arguement, is it's kow towing to the fascist agenda. Seeing those who vote bnp concerns as prime, as some kind class vangaurd. It seems to get things upside down. We should build an alternative, but why start with the least progressive people? Surely those with the most progressive ideas, including amongst them anti fascist's, will be the most fertile ground?

 

[butchersapron]

Another thing that bugs me about this "you can only build an alternative" arguement, is it's kow towing to the fascist agenda. Seeing those who vote bnp concerns as prime, as some kind class vangaurd. It seems to get things upside down. We should build an alternative, but why start with the least progressive people? Surely those with the most progressive ideas, including amongst them anti fascist's, will be the most fertile ground?

Oh my god, yet another point in the position articulated in the article you keep referring to that you've got 100% wrong, another misreading of its case that means you have yet another central point totally arse about tit. It doesn't argue that you should start exclusively with BNP voters or supporters, or even that there's a need to. It argues that the BNP have been able to racialise social issues in a number of areas by concentrating on the factors (dishonestly and with no real answers to the problem) that are effecting the working class across the board, and that dealing with these issues is how to deal with the section that are susceptible to the far-right - on the basis that a rising tide lifts all boats. It's emphatically not about just targeting BNP voters/supporters, but the working class as a whole.

You really are a disgrace with these persistent misreadings and misreprepresentations - disagree with the arguments by all means, but understand them first, understand what they're saying.

 

[TremulousTetra]

You seem rather sure of your opinion that the 'expose them' model has had some serious effect. What's your evidence? And please do try and square whatever you come up with with the historically unprecedented position the BNP has managed to develop for itself over the last decade.

You seem rather sure of your opinion that the 'expose them' model has NOT had some serious effect. What's your evidence? And please do try and square whatever you come up with with the historically unprecedented concealment of its fascist position the BNP has managed to develop for itself over the last decade.

Pretty crucial video this. Griffin says to KKK x leader Duke and to a meeting of white supremacists " our ideas, which are your ideas too"?

Nick Griffin says "There is a difference between selling out your ideas, and selling your ideas. And the British National party is not about selling out our ideas, which are your ideas too, but we are determined to sell them. That means using the saleable words, freedom, security, identity, democracy,,, [.......] Where we control the media, perhaps then the British people will say " every last one must go". [....] Instead of talking about racial purity, you talk about identity."

He clearly explains how he intends to decieve the electorate.

Last meeting griffin and duke? Not sure, but heres 2006, Photo of BNP leader with extremist - News - Manchester Evening News
also;

If there racism and fascism does not deter voters, why do they conceal it?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Oh my god, yet another point in the position articulated in the article you keep referring to that you've got 100% wrong, another misreading of its case that means you have yet another central point totally arse about tit. It doesn't argue that you should start exclusively with BNP voters or supporters, or even that there's a need to. It argues that the BNP have been able to racialise social issues in a number of areas by concentrating on the factors (dishonestly and with no real answers to the problem) that are effecting the working class across the board, and that dealing with these issues is how to deal with the section that are susceptible to the far-right - on the basis that a rising tide lifts all boats. It's emphatically not about just targeting BNP voters/supporters, but the working class as a whole.

You really are a disgrace with these persistent misreadings and misreprepresentations - disagree with the arguments by all means, but understand them first, understand what they're saying.

pot kettle.

 

[butchersapron]

I note that you, of course, don't ask mr baldwin for the evidence that he's derived his opinion from, nor provide any yourself - little wonder as you both agree with each other. May i ask you then what evidence you have for your opinion that an 'expose them' model is now and has been working effectively to stop/retard the growth of the far-right during a period in which the far-right has undergone an historically unprecedented growth and spread of influence? What is your argument beyond simply saying Griffin said he doesn't like being called a racist?

Here's mine - you should know this as you've been moaning about this article for weeks on end now:

Exposing the BNP’s various criminal and political records has had no discernible impact. In a country in which more than 40 per cent of all men can expect to have some form of criminal conviction during their lifetime, pointing out to voters in the sort of areas the BNP targets that a candidate has a conviction for assault or theft is likely to have a limited impact. If this were not the case we would today be seeing declining BNP votes and councillors not being returned post-exposure. But we’re not. We’re seeing a steadily rising vote and increasing re-elections.

This tactic has been pursued over the past decade on a scale never seen before. Every section of the media has got in on the game, every candidate has been hammering home their BNP opponents’ convictions. If this strategy was ever to make an impact it would have done so in these almost ideal conditions; instead the far right vote continues to rise. We have to conclude that this approach is ineffective.

Exposing past political views – for instance, BNP leader Nick Griffin’s association with Holocaust denial in the 1990s and earlier – has suffered a similar fate. Griffin has proved adept at moderating his most extreme opinions for the benefit of the media. He will now acknowledge the Holocaust as a historical ‘fact’ and, as he put it to the Observer in 2002, he claims that the only reason ‘people like me’ are not always ‘polite and reasonable’ on the subject is ‘frustration with how it is used to prevent any genuine debate on questions to do with immigration, ethnicity and the cultural survival of the western nations’.

In doing so, he can effectively neutralise the issue. If, despite his denial of Holocaust denial, an interviewer presses on regardless, it permits Griffin to turn the tables and ask if he or she wants to talk about politics. The same thing happens on a larger scale electorally

As with the exposure of BNP candidates’ criminal convictions, if this approach of bringing up the death camps and Nazi Germany was going to have any impact it would have done so in the especially favourable conditions of recent fevered mass media scrutiny of the BNP. This approach did find success in the three or four decades after the second world war, when a real folk memory of the sacrifices made by millions was still alive. Today, in different conditions, it cannot, has not and will not make the same inroads on BNP support.

 

[butchersapron]

pot kettle.

We're really at the very outer limit of your politics at this point aren't we? Embarrassing.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I note that you, of course, don't ask mr baldwin for the evidence that he's derived his opinion from, nor provide any yourself - little wonder as you both agree with each other.

What he actualy said.

I dont see how you can be so sure butchers. The growth of the BNP has not been stopped by the UAF etc. But you really cant be sure what effect theyve had. There are lots of people disillusioned with mainstream politics,lots who think the 3 main parties speak crap on issues like crime and immigration. Yet as RMP says most people completely reject the BNP. I dont think you can really be sure that Hope not Hate etc has not had a good effect.
I think your debate is based on your idealogical straitjacket and you try to fit facts into your theory every much as the ANL etc.

 

[butchersapron]

An interesting little fact series of figures - prior to 1997, i think the far-right in their entire historical existence had only ever saved a single deposit in a parliamentary election - recent results and deposits saved:

1992 - 0
1997 - 3
2001 - 5
2005 - 34

Now, does that support the suggestion that trying to associate the BNP with the nazis and the holocaust etc is becoming more effective or less effective as we move further away from WW2 and the sort of post-war anti-fascism that had this approach as it's centre-piece?

Please, please do say they'd have have 100 without.

 

[butchersapron]

What he actualy said.

Er..yeah? And? In what way does that mean he's not posted up any evidence to back up his opinion? In what does it mean that you didn't ask him to provide evidence to back up his opinion whilst asking me to provide evidence?

 

[TremulousTetra]

We're really at the very outer limit of your politics at this point aren't we? Embarrassing.

Start reading, and addressing what people actualy say/ask you, instead of hissy fitting about things people haven't said. That is what I meant by pot kettle.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Er..yeah? And? In what way does that mean he's not posted up any evidence to back up his opinion? In what does it mean that you didn't ask him to provide evidence to back up his opinion whilst asking me to provide evidence?

I give up. You cant even fucking read when it's hilighted.

 

[TremulousTetra]

An interesting little fact series of figures - prior to 1997, i think the far-right in their entire historical existence had only ever saved a single deposit in a parliamentary election - recent results and deposits saved:

1992 - 0
1997 - 3
2001 - 5
2005 - 34

Now, does that support the suggestion that trying to associate the BNP with the nazis and the holocaust etc is becoming more effective or less effective as we move further away from WW2 and the sort of post-war anti-fascism that had this approach as it's centre-piece?

Please, please do say they'd have have 100 without.

On a scale of one to 10, what you say was the scale of the media, Tory party and new labour campaign against asylum seekers, immigrants, muslim terrorism was in 1992?

Fearing for their seats, the Tory started this campaign in 1996ish, with one south coast editor refering to asylum seekers as human sewage. There were calls for concentration camps for asylum seekers. And even then I predicted this is where the campaign would lead, and ever increasing vote for the fascists.

You're right we do need to build an alternative as the real solution. And we can do that amongst a real mass anti-fascist campaigning, mass strikes, mass anti-capitalism, amongst the masses of progressive people, when there is an upturn in the class struggle. But! Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The minuscule left in the UK, cannot magic class struggle. We need to understand defensive as well as offensive actions.