The New 'Cult Of The BNP': Distorting Australian Nationalist Strategy By A False Reading Of British National Party Politics
Jim Saleam and another
There has been a lot of discussion in Australian nationalist circles, over time, about the British National Party (BNP). This discussion has had many aspects, mostly positive, in the evolution of useful tactics etc. Certain foreign examples have resonance.
However, in the last twelve months, there have been other mutterings and writings about the BNP, which have a negative aspect.
It is necessary to state that some 'nationalists' began to make a cult out of their interpretations of the line taken by the BNP on some questions, out of their perceptions of the tactics of the BNP in 'mainstreaming' the party, in cutting off rough ideological edges, in establishing a new media friendly image.
This has led to a subjective desire on the part of these 'nationalists' to impose a BNP 'model' upon the Australian movement. This line has been pushed in several places.
The Line To Be Imposed
The BNP has over 8,000 members. It has the financial resources to organise itself in a sophisticated way currently unequalled in Australia. Because we speak the English language, the image of the BNP as a 'model' is more likely to prevail over 'models' offered by the German National Democratic Party, or the French National Front or the Italian Social Alliance. We say this in so far as overseas models are always appropriate! We say this, noting that it is only certain aspects from the foreign 'model' that can ever really be 'adopted'.
In recent years, the BNP has professionalised itself, creating a mass newspaper, a glossy magazine, branches, Internet circles and party sub-groups and the human resources able to address at least some of the misrepresentation any nationalist movement may suffer in the bourgeois press.
Therefore, the BNP has cultivated the style that it is a party of the normal people, not a fringe party, nor a movement for fringe personalities. That is all to the good. However, one must be careful not to confuse form and substance. In that way, the BNP has modified and rewritten parts of its programmatic documents and other political-ideological outpourings. This can also be positive, unless (as may occur) the less jarring words and less 'threatening' (sic) policy lines attract people who read the words in a way different to their authors. The risk stands that a new membership may emerge that in its 'reasonableness' and 'mainstream' nature, repudiates many of the very principles of nationalism. Has this happened? We suspect that it has. A period of redefinition is necessary for the BNP to assimilate the new people and not be diluted by them.
Those who wish to copy the BNP (or their understanding of the party's direction) may seek to trim the ideological underpinning of Australian nationalism. The illusion is held out that, by a number of changes in programme and style, success is but a short time away. What changes? These opportunists say they want no more references to anything 'the public' won't understand or which the media can make up stories about. In particular, they want the discussion about Zionism, the driving factor for war in the Middle East and the underlying raison d'etre of much of the Islamic nuttery of our day - canned! They want to remove anyone who espouses that line. They want to expel from their ranks anyone who observes the role paid by Zionism in the workings of the Australian state on immigration, race-relatiions and foreign policy. We shall explain all this in the next section, because it seems the BNP is doing something similar. They want to get rid of anyone without a 'clean' media image. They want to give the nationalist party an orientation towards the mainstream (sic) where a clean political life can be lived without secatarian concerns or grubby disputes, where the party interacts with supposedly normal people. Indeed, nice-sounding, but it also contains the potential to cause the nationalist message itself to be blunted by a climate of 'compromise' with interest groups and other parties and politically uneducated individuals. It is suggested that by doing these things in combination, the nationalist party can no longer be misrepresented as some sort of racist, neo-nazi or extremist party. Support will boom.
The appeal is therefore to the psychology of reason. It misses the point that once the state and its media understand that this is where the opportunists wish to go, a powerful whip is in their hand to shepherd the herd as the goal posts get moved. Once getting good media becomes harder, the opportunists will further trim the programme and trim the ideology. Can we trust that they would not? Where will they end up? Can we also really have faith that a party of rational voters is better overall than a party that retains its capacity to work directly amongst the people and which has preserved the 'rougher' qualities necessary to survive and defend itself?
Whilst it is unnecessary to go to detail, some wish to copy BNP for other reasons and even plan to enter into a formal bloc with them, a matter derived of a false perception of Australian identity as one containing an over-emphasis on parts of our historical and other connections with Britain. It is thought formal bonds with BNP lend organizational weight etc. However, this is not our curent discussion and it is stated here just to illustrate the way in which this discussion has moved and the intensity of feeling on the part of the opportunists to impose the BNP 'model' upon Australian nationalism.
It is time also to be practical, indeed a little cynical. We have to ask whether some of that which is viewed as virtue to be emulated, might actually be a product of a serious factional question in the BNP.
BNP: Factional Issues
It appears to be the case that the BNP has some factional divisions. In parties, this is generally a consequence of life. In this case, the things to be imposed by some people upon the Australian scene appear both part of the factional struggle in BNP and part of the overall struggle of ideas in the British nationalist scene over which the BNP is dominant (but note: it is not the only party).
The factional struggle centres on a set of inter-related questions. In years past (and still currently) the mass media seeks to portray the BNP as a racist and neo-nazi party (sic). This vexation is trotted out year in and year out. Although there are innumerable ways to deal with these matters, it is also true that to the.untrained, this smear-line is often perceived as a matter of correctable (sic) image building. That means that 'causes' for the smear are looked for within the ranks and in the party style, rather than moreso in the battle for ideological hegemony waged by the dominant liberal ideology against the nationalist challenge.
The BNP resolved to clean-up its style. Naturally, silly people with ideas and activities the media could centre on to prove (sic) the racist and neo-nazi smears, were asked to leave. Fair enough, by and large. There is nothing wrong with a purge of some foolish people and a good old-fashioned paint-job.
However it is open to conclude, the matter became tangled with a major political question. Britain has faced a major influx of Islamic immigrants. It was quite correct to direct attention to this question. In recent times, the Islamic migration question has excited great public concern in Britain and fueled the growth of BNP. Two things then happened. First, the BNP adapted its propaganda towards that problem. Second, it was forced to confront the issues of Israel and Zionism. Some people argued that Israel was a potential ally in the war against Islamic extremism in the Middle East, that it was a model of a 'nationalist state' taking the hard decisions Britain should take. They then said that the Zionists in Britain were not the main problem or even a substantive problem, just people over-enthusiastic in the support for Israel and that any taking-of-issue with them generally, would be cofused by the media - with criticism of Jews per se, and therefore, as anti-semitism and possibly, neo-nazism.
This line was touted in BNP publications and its existence has been noticed by the Australian opportunists.
There appears to be a surface 'reasonableness' to these collective propositions. Once dissected, they are nonsense.
Israel is no ally for Britain and the nationalists should not suggest it; indeed, Israel is, by its existence, its maintenance and its wars, part of the cause for the existence of Islamic fundamentalism. If the latter is a danger, so is Israel. No British soldier, in Iraq or in Afghanistan, should die in wars Israel helped to promote. Again, Israel is not a 'nationalist state', because Israel is not a normal state. It is merely an entity outgrowth of the international Zionist apparatus, a historical lie created on land colonised from an old people. The Zionists in Britain mobilise British resources for Israel's interests and marshall public opinion accordingly. They are no allies in the internal immigration debate - because hitherto they have argued for the virtues of Britain's multiracial and multifaith society, and basically still do. To explain these positions is mandatory (yes, explaining in a balanced and serious manner) to define what Britain should do in surmounting the crisis. And if the media cries: neo-nazism? There are many answers (and here are just a few): there are Jewish anti Zionists; the much talked about few Jews in BNP can be asked to condemn Zionism; Zionism uses Nazi methods; anti Zionism is not anti semitism (regardless of what the US State Department says); a sensible anti Zionism in fact invalidates neo-nazi style anti semitism by occupying any political ground ratbags could pretend to occupy; ironically, the Zionists in Israel courted the Nazis during the Second World War offering an anti British uprising in Palestine, building on a relationship they had at points in the 1930's.
Given that the BNP has attracted large numbers of members (older people) from the former National Front and soaked up cadre from a plethora of Third Position and radical nationalist structures, there would be a decided group in the party opposed to any accommodation with Zionism in Britain, or with Israeli Zionist practise. Further, other forces on the British scene also oppose the trend in BNP which might see them crack their own whip at the sidelines to keep the party line straight and on target.
Whatever the situation, a false line has appeared in BNP. It seems to have factional support. It is a wrong line which may soon be repudiated. Why follow it?
The Australian Nationalist Attitude Towards BNP
Australian nationalists see all foreign parties of nationalism in a fraternal way. Every country creates a form of politics which defend its identity, independence and freedom. .Each party is true to its own terrain. Therefore Australian nationalists seek to liaise with such parties, learn from them, exchange ideas and encourage a general feeling of solidarity. This solidarity may one day have enormous importance in developing a new co-operative order to replace the New World Order regime. Generally, the largest and most prominent party and leadership will be the focus of attention - if any country has produced competing parties.
This friendship must be fraternal. It cannot involve the interference of a party in the affairs of another.
The future of the BNP is of general interest to us. It is our hope that the nationalist majority prevails and that, if as he appears to be doing, Nick Griffin leads this majority over the reactionary minority. We cannot be certain of anything, but we have faith that it will be so. Other parties have had similar difficulties and addressed them. If it turns out not to be so, we may be disappointed, but will simply move on.
Australian nationalists will continue to study the progress of the BNP. We will do justice to the positive lessons and look forward to cooperation with British nationalist forces. In the right way, there is much to be gained. It is a pity that some Australians make a cult of the curriculum.