[Politics]"Not for the true-born Englishman the bony, angular knee of the so-called intellectual"

[davywavy]

I was having a conversation about politics the other day. You might have noticed that I do this quite a lot, largely because it's a safe outlet for frustrations which otherwise might manifest themselves in the acquisition of a rifle and a clock tower. As political chats seem to do quite a lot at the moment, this one came back to the BNP. Mainly because they're a bunch of fat oafs and are an easy target.
I'm not one for indulging in the rabid hatred that some direct towards the BNP myself; I'm always leery of people who hate anything with a passion, as I feel that implies they see something of themselves in the thing they are rejecting - in the same way that the most rabid homophobes tend to be closeted homosexuals themselves. I'd rather see the BNP given an open, free speaking forum as public debate - and loud, loud laughter - are the most effective weapons against the small minded. Anyway, on with the point of this post.

"Bloody right-wingers", complained my pal.
"Right wing? The BNP?" I said. "Where did you get that from?"
"Well, they are, aren't they?"
Now, as I'm quite a fan of political debate and the like I've actually read the BNP manifesto - I find it's easier to argue with people when I understand their position - and I have to say that I found saying the BNP were right wing confusing, to say the least.
"Hang on", I said. "I've read the BNP's manifesto, and they're in favour of high taxes on the rich, protectionism, workers co-operatives, a large state, regulation, unionisation and nationalising major industries, utilities and, wierdly, the RNLI. None of those thngs strike me as very...right wing?"
"Ah", was the reply. "It's their immigration policy which makes them right wing."
"Ooooh-kay", I said, taking this in. "So they're right wing. How about me, then? I'm in favour of low taxes, privatisation, deregulation, a small state, free enterprise, free trade and it's essential adjunct of open borders. Does that make me left wing?"
"No. You're right wing."
"Okay, I'm lost. On the one hand regulation, nationalisation, high taxes, protectionism and immigration controls make them right wing, but on the other hand deregulation, free enterprise, low taxes, free trade and open borders make me...right wing. You'll understand my confusion."
"I don't want to have this conversation any more."

I have to say this was a disappointing end to things, as I ended up none the wiser on how two people who hold mutually contradictory political opinions could be described as the same thing. I went off and checked the normally impartial Political compass which, as I suspected, described the BNP as authoritarian lefties (the position of the LibDems as semi-anarchists would also explain why I find myself increasingly considering them as an option):


But anyway; given that the evidence would certainly suggest that the BNP are to the left of Michael Foot, why do people insist on describing them as right wing? And what do you think?

[Poll #1417983]

Comments

[mrmmarc.livejournal.com]

Facism is to right wing politics as fish are to Newtonian physics.

The self same people who equate racism with right wing views and get all upset and 'I HATE racists' are usually the same who equate the problems with the Taliban/Al-Quida with Islam.
Or who say that the problems with Ulster are caused by religious reasons.

Stupid is as stupid does.

At least the BNP are honest in their drool craven nimrodness.
With many 'intellectuals' you have to suffer the intellectual vanity.

*sighs*
Mind you I know why there IS a link made.
it is nothing to do with left or right wingism...

It's to do with being stupid.
There are, on average the same number of morons on both extremes of the political divide.
RIGHT WING morons are easier to spot cos they talk about big easy issues to talk about.
And we all go 'gosh look at those retards' and assume everyone on the right is thick and THEN see the BNP and go 'Ewwww, how frightful, and they are JUST LIKE those horrible people who are on the right wing and are stupid... therefore they MUST be right wing."

We tend to overlook the sheer number of fucktards on the left who are so momumentally thick forced sterilisation would be a blessing you knows?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

forced sterilisation would be a blessing you knows?

I believe that was the rationale the Swedish Government actually gave for sterilising about 2% of their population as unfit to breed, you know.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/]

There does remain an ideological difference. Racism is inherently elitist and 'social darwinist' and this is in line with right wing thinking. Socialist, leftist thought is centred on the idea of egalitarianism, equal rights and against priviledge and elites. So there is a yawning gulf there ideologically. Racism DOES fit with right wing philosophy. It doesn't equate to it, but that is there it fits in.

Similarly to deny the involvement of religion in the Al-Queda and NI situations is remarkably short sighted. Even if you want to claim its not a direct cause it's clearly an 'accelerant' and makes such conflicts easier to excuse in the minds of those who want to fight.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with almost everything you said, except to equate socialism & leftism...

Power to the people does not mean power to the politbureau.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/]

I'd suggest a brush-up on the definition of socialism then ;)

[(Anonymous)]

Some naughty and frivolous people might suggest both are built on the politics of Envy:

Your member of the Socialist Revolutionary party might want the Dachas and Estates of Prince Lvov and his degenerate Liberal Aristo mates.

Your member of the National Socialist German Workers Party (ex German Socialist Party, ex German Social Workers Party (Officials)) might want the money of Rothschild and his degenerate Liberal Zionist conspirators.

Both sets of honest children of toil will naturally need guidance from the right thinking Vanguard of the Revolution who are not of course any form of Elite. Oh and it would be a shame to waste all those Dachas, Palaces and widowed posh totty.

D

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

There's a really neat bit of emotional blackmail used by lefties; it's to look at you with an earnest quiver to their bottom lip and say "but don't you think that society should be run for the good of everybody?" It's a fine piece of blackmail, as it relies on the fact that very few people are going to say no. I always hated it for the rhetorical trick that it is, and it struck me what the problem is:

"Don't you think that society should be run for the good of everybody?"
"Run by whom, exactly?"

[(Anonymous)]

Why, Hazel Blears of course.

Re: Mr. Grim's comment, whilst socialists may attempt to claim the workers interests for their own, it is clearly not so, as I'm a worker, and not a socialist. Simple set theory proves their claim is spurious.

[mrmmarc.livejournal.com]

Ah but you are only PARTLY right. Racism WAS linked to Social Darwinism and Eugenics and so forth. Once upon a time.
But not anymore.
Now racism is linked to economics (as seen with racism in the far east is where you mostly find this), ignorance (British racism is here) and fear (lots of people support it for this reason).
The racism you mention was born out of old fashioned ideals no one actually follows anymore (no one serious)- it is a world view that INSPIRES racial hatred.
Whereas racism today is INSPIRED by circumstances- it is reactionary; and _nothing_ reactionary can be placed within either the left or right wing of any political mindset. It is just that- reactionary and stupid.
Left and Right unite and be thick! Reactionary politics do NOT get placed in any world view- to suggest reactionary racism is right wing is to blatantly ignore Soviet anti-Semitism for example.

And I do NOT refute there ws a role played by religious bliefs in both conflicts- I refute that it was the cause/primary reason in the politics of Al-Quida and/or the Ulster paramilitaries.
The provisional IRA, for example, never had ONE religious doctrine in their literature- they were a avowed marxist-leninist revolutionary group who sought the establishment of a socialist republic uniting BOTH North and South (mixed up with a lovely smidge of Irish nationalism). The ONLY religion that got there was the fact that their support base came from an ethic group EASILY identified as 'catholic' (where in fact it was not- it was more closely defined by the words 'ethic minority working class prolaterian').
Al-Quida has no core religious or political world view- it embraces Wahaabism, Sunni and Shi'a islam, AND ethic tribal views from groups in the Peshwar; plus rampant nationalism. Remember it was formed from a NATIONALIST agenda- its core rethoric was purely focused upon internal nationalistic dialogues and a division between ruling aristocratic members of a feudal kingdom. Religion is how it recruits sure- but they never started fighting for religious reasons no matter what they say.

jus my take... :)

_nothing_ reactionary can be placed within either the left or right wing of any political mindset. I

[(Anonymous)]

That was a very interestng post; but (and my History is a little rusty) "_nothing_ reactionary can be placed within either the left or right wing of any political mindset. It is just that- reactionary and stupid" is not quite how I remeber the original terms being coined.

My memory is that the French revolutionary National Assembly sat in a horseshoe sort of arrangement with the radical Jacobins immediately to the Chairman's left and the Ultras immediately on his right which a) suggests that right wing did originally mean Reactionaries supporting traditional authority against any change and left wing meant those social darwinists determined to drive though the new Utopia with the guillotine; b) Rather handily for the libertarian/authoritian idea it put them both close together with the "yes we need some Reform but would you both stop killing us please" liberals far away in the middle of the horseshoe.

I know even less about the formation of Al Qaida, but doesn't it argue for the reformation of the Abbasid Caliphate? That would put it about as far away from Shi'ism as you can get. Isn't it pretty strongly grounded in Wahhabism, a sort of fundamentalist Sunni Sect (the power of which which we have only ourselves to blame for, by supporting the House of Sa'ud against the Legitimist Hashemite Defenders of the Holy Places in the '20s).

Regarding Ireland; Sinn Fein had over 90% of the vote in the 1920s. De Valera, Collins & Erskine Childers were really, really, not Marxist-Leninists. Post War, the Official I.R.A. certainly was but it was pretty marginal by then. However you dress it up, the Provos arose out of Sectarian not Class repression and their support remains based firmly on the romance of resistance to a Protestant Ascendancy. Beardie may beleive some nonsense but the Butcher's Boy is a complete pragmatist. I can think of no Wolf Tone in the 20th century, the protestant workers of the North feared for their livelihood if swamped by the Priest ridden masses of the South. it's all Churchill's fault.

D

Re: _nothing_ reactionary can be placed within either the left or right wing of any political mindse

[mrmmarc.livejournal.com]

"My memory is that the French revolutionary National Assembly sat in a horseshoe sort of arrangement with the radical Jacobins immediately to the Chairman's left and the Ultras immediately on his right"

One could argue it came from feudal sumbology about who sat on the right or left.
Reactionary politics is just that- that which exists purely as a REACTION to as oppsed to be a a stand point with a world view. Does that define an awful lot of politics?
(grins)

For example Irish politics in the 30's was stupidly recationary (aka Irish nationalism was defined as 'That which is NOT British'-it took us many years to get over that crap). Its why the Irish do not speak of th awesome and brave military history. Most of it was done under a British flag.
In the French revolution- reactionary politics were used by both sides- but the trick to spot who was the MOST reactionaty? Spot who massacred the most people. Always a dead give away.
:)

Yes, the doctrinal oprigins of Al Qaida is Wahhabism, but as I said originally they are a umbrella group that encompasses just about every variation of Islam you wish... and also every cause ouside of religion (nationalism, greed, drug dealing etc). Just like the BNP adopting violently left wing policies when they decry Marxists- reactionary politics have NO core idea behind it.
Same with these boys.
The fued started in the House of Sa'ud- and remains mostly based within the house still (the House of Bin'laden are and remain forever tied to the House of Sa'ud- their entire wealth depends upon it still- and note nearly all members are still closely allied to the ruling house).

Please note- I talked SPECIFICALLY of the Provisional IRA not the original IRA- the two organisations are not linked. Nor were they exacpt by name.
Did you read the provos own writing? Whoever *they* dress it up they were classic left wing revolutionaries (I talk about the likes of Adams and the other leaders)- they used their community the same way the ANC used theirs- and they saw themselves as brothers TO these groups.

What I am saying is that the religion was a label- it is not in ANY doctrine found anywhere that says Protestant should kill Catholic (except stuff written during the rfeormation I will happily point out)- the central point remains- you had people with an ethnic/political/nationalist agenda- to help them they used religion.
The central point was to say the belief that religion is the ONLY cause of Ulsters issues is as ignorant yeah? Blaming religion as the main cause is akin to saying religion had ZERO role to play... it was one of many things- my orginal post was mocking those who said it was the only cause..

As for me...
I do not blame Churchill.
I blame the De Valera- but thats what happens when you pay attention to a Hispanic America with delusions of Irish identity- he will take your country and your culture and screw it over six ways to sunday.
:)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/]

And how is that any different to then? Remember the Great Depression was hugely responsible for the upswing in the right wing then as the recession today has fed into it here. Sure, it's always there, but economics exacerbates it. Reactionary racism is definately planted squarely on the right wing. The Soviet Union may have included anti-semitism (odd being as Stalin was of Jewish stock as was Marx) but IMO that's tied up in the same association of Jews with money and besides, the Soviet Union wasn't left wing. It was a state-capitalist, authoritarian, totalitarian state dressed up in a pantomime Marx costume.

The root behind most of the Islamic conflict takes us back to Judaism again and Israel and so is, I'm afraid, still rooted in religion.

[(Anonymous)]

Um, the Nazis did claim that Dzhugashvili meant "son of a jew" in Georgian; but in Georgian "jew" is "ebraeli". Stalin's Dad was an cobbler of Orthodox stock called Besarion Dzhugashvili and his mum was the equally Orthodox Ketevan Geladze.
One of her employers, David Pismamedov, was Jewish. He leant her the money to send him to the Seminary where he was educated. I understand her last words to him were "you'd have done better to become a priest".