Friday, May 02, 2008

BNP Gains in Local Brit. Elections

Go figure. The people voted the wrong way, and they are stupid and spiteful for doing so. They're racists. They'll be sorry they didn't vote Labour.

Local election results are coming in today from Britain, and it looks like the British National Party [BNP] is picking up some stray seats. Below are some comments from defeated Labour candidates and how they feel about those who didn't elect them.

[T]he far-right British National Party – which also took the Brinsworth and Catcliffe seat – becomes the third largest party in the borough.

Ousted Labour councillor of 16 years Glyn Robinson said he did not know if the people of Maltby realised what they had done.

"I think they will live to regret this," he said following the vote count, which stretched into the early hours of Friday.

"I'm very disappointed, and having represented them for so long I'm really sorry that they have chosen to elect the BNP. It's a party that stands for nothing but racism and outright bigotry."

Independent candidate Keith Stringer was 'gobsmacked' by the result.


Victorious BNP member Will Blair refused to comment on his success in Maltby.

Mr Stonebridge - who resigned as chairman of Anston Parish Council last year - said there was 'an element of spite' from a number of people in his ward, which had contributed to his defeat....

The solution is clear: Don't have any more elections if the people are too stupid to vote for Labour. And why have elections? The people don't deserve such saints as the Labour candidates anyway.

For those who didn't read this below at Covenant Zone, I left it as a comment on Truepeers' piece.

I think most of us who give the issue some thought can distinguish between ethnic nationalism and xenophobic particularism. Some can't, as we know, see past the Left paradigms of our current pseudo-culture, and they therefore become particularist in their own way. It's a delicate balance. We like our own, but how we define our won is something flexible in reasonable people. I have some serious concerns about the BNP, just as much as I do about some of our most thoughtless Leftist fellows in this struggle against jihad and Muslim supremacism. Falling for one mindless extreme or the other harms us.

I saw the gains in the BNP's efforts, and frankly I'm disappointed they didn't do better, though I'm not at all surprised. The BNP is the best hope of a wake-call to the intelligentsia on the British horizon. It shows to anyone willing to attend to it that the natives are restless. In cases thus one is wise to attend before the problem grows. Not all BNP voters are drunken louts on the dole, and to write them off as such is to miss an important movement across Britain and, I guess here, across Europe: that the people are slowly moving away from the terrorism of the intelligentsia's normative narrative. Those few percent who voted for the BNP are today those who will go further tomorrow, and those who see it will follow to where the BNP is today, always some steps behind the active vanguard. The question is where the vanguard will stop and how powerful this radical vanguard will be when it does. I think it has far to go yet to give what I call "permission" to the masses to contradict in action the Gnostic intelligentsia. This is a beginning; and I am concerned that if it takes too long and is too flaccid a movement, the BNP will find itself overtaken by a deeper radicalism that will draw the middle to a further extreme. More now will save us greater problems in the future. The louder the warning now, the sooner the correction.

The resentment of the working classes in Britain, the nativist movement, is healthy at this point; but if it lags, if it doesn't do its therapeutic good, if it doesn't wreck the old order and give space for a new and sober health in the body politic, then we will witness, I think, a further resentment that will draw out deeper hostilities and more likelihood of direct action against an unresponsive system.

Let the lower classes, as it were, and the sensitive intellectual class members blow off some steam now, gain recognition of their concerns, find some redress, and perhaps things will settle. But I don't think so in this round. Not enough to prompt a change, meaning further prompting next round. As confidence grows in the BNP, or as confidence sags in the BNP we'll see a reaction in like. It's all up to the intelligentsia. Will they wait till the day they're in the cart on the way to their beheadings, or will they heed the call they should be hearing now?

The average native Brit has legitimate rights as an ethnic native. To miss that or to denigrate it in terms of the nativist racism or xenophobia is to bring out further resentments that will lead to conflagrations, apocalyptic ones, I dare say, in the future, human nature always being the same regardless of time or place.

We can be broadly 'us' today; and if we must be less broadly us today than we all might prefer, still it's better than to be at genuine war among us all later. So I cheer the gains of the BNP but wish the message of discontent had been stronger. 2010 will tell us far more, whether we like it or not.

In that time we must come to terms with our issues regarding nativism. Leftist hoohah won't do us any good. If we support the BNP and other nativist parties in upcoming elections we must do so clearly in theory. To indulge in the authority of the given is going to wreck us. Either side will become more hostile and less effective against the opposition. We must accept that we are 'we' to some extent, and that beyond that some are not and cannot be 'us.' I accept most as us in the broadest way. But it's not limitless, as some of our fellows seem to think it should be.

To come to terms with Reason as our guide, we can determine the bounds of our support for Israel and our support for, as an example, Vlams Belang, even for the BNP, while at the same time not dumping our foreign born wives and children. Or us, in some cases.

My personal position, one not completely shared by my colleagues here, is that we need a general theory of our goal, open in the teleological sense I mean it in.

To summarize, I welcome the gains by the BNP as a warning to the intelligentsia of Europe, but I fear it's not loud enough to shake them from their phantasies as yet. I don't have any deep liking of the BNP, and I understand the antipathy of our fellows who hate them, but we cannot write-off our own as less enlightened than we in the expectation that they will somehow go away rather than grow even more hostile in future. They, like we, have legitimate rights and concerns. Where the middle ends up is going to be for those who decide to act, acting as Men of Action. In that we need theory so we have an idea of where we go and to know where we do not go.

It's not so simple as our fellows elsewhere would like it to be, and if they don't see the fog of necessary collusion with others, then we stand a good chance of genuine harm at a later time in the fog of war, shooting mindlessly and blindly at each other.

No comments: