Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Wealden Unite Against Fascism launched

Tonight, we finalised the setting up of a branch of the UAF to cover Crawley, Horsham, Redhill and surrounding areas. It will be called 'Wealden' because we didn't want to restrict the group to Crawley or to any other specific area. It seems that the BNP are trying to gain councillors by finding vacant Parish Council places and putting candidates forward - often these will be unopposed. Exploiting this means that they can claim to be gaining support and representation (despite the fact that their vote is going down where they stand in real elections).

In the near future the Wealden UAF will be looking to campaign in the area, particularly where the BNP or other fascist parties have a visible presence. There is talk of hosting a 'Love Music Hate Racism' event, probably in Crawley, to build awareness of the campaign with young (and probably not so young) people in the area. It would also be a great opportunity for local musicians to display their talents and to help bring the community together

17 comments:

Skuds said...

And how good to see your old man getting actively involved!

glad thereafter said...

Fascism? How do you define it Danivon?

If you love music should you consider how different musical traditions came to be formed - as expressions of local, distinct, cultures? Are they at all valuable?

If you hate racism should you consider how the ultimate expression of racism - genocide - proceeds and devours?

Rafael Lemkin wrote the legal codes defining Genocide for the UN after WW2. He elaborated on his thinking later:

"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation.

It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.

The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.

Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity but as members of a national group."

"Beyond the 1948 Convention -- Emerging principles of Genocide in Customary International Law," Maryland Journal of International Law and Trade, vol. 17, no. 2, 193-226.

Thus, the goal of eradicating 'racism' by working to eliminate national sentiment and identity, and suppress its political expression is genocidal. And surely nothing could be more racist than that?

Danivon said...

Fascism - an ideology based on the supremacy of one group of society which controls the whole through autocratic and often totalitarian means. cf Italy 1924-43; USSR 1917-90

I don't follow your logic at all, you start by saying that genocide is the result of racism taken to the extreme. I can agree on that.

You seem to be asserting that anti-racists which to ultimately destroy each race, or the differences between them. That is false, as far as I can see. For myself, I just wish to combat racism as an idea, and to deter people from following those who exploit racial differences for political ends.

Your last paragraph does not logically follow from any of the preceding, and so I don't get your point at all.

glad thereafter said...

In defining Fascism, I would recommend you include some variation on a theme of all else being made subservient to the interests of the state, and something about a corporatist economy, and possibly a leader-cult.

'Autocratic' and 'totalitarian' must be synonyms if they apply both to Benny's Italy and the USSR right through to 1990. The distinction between A & T would normally be that power always resides with one man in a specifically 'A' regime, but sometimes with a party or regime in a contrasted 'T' regime. There were several periods of collective party rule in the Soviet Union.

Do the BNP or their supporters want to see a fascist regime?

My conclusion follows Lemkin's comments quite inevitably and I think clearly.

I'll leave you to muse on it, and the implications for your post denying peoplehood to the English.

Danivon said...

I'm not going to get into a semantic argument about what fascism is, having already given two examples of fascist states.

>Do the BNP or their supporters want to see a fascist regime?

I believe that a significant number of them do, yes. They, of course, will claim that this is not the case, but we should not ignore their past or the views of other like minded groups who are not so careful about their public image.

>My conclusion follows Lemkin's comments quite inevitably and I think clearly.

No, they do not. Allow me to point out the flaws in your logic.

Your argument goes like this:

In order to end up at C (genocide), with the final act being B (killing off a large number of people), you first apply A (attack them through non-violent means, such as denigration, legal oppression etc).

So, you have A->B to achieve C.

However, that does not mean that A will always lead to B, let alone that mild actions that might look like A are actually A. It certainly doesn't necessarily imply that A is part of a plan to bring about C.

For example, if C is 'Going to Work' and B is 'driving to the office', while A is getting up in the morning, washing dressing and having breakfast' we have the same pattern.

However, I may get up in the morning, wash, have breakfast (A) and then go into the garden and cut the grass(D), in order to achieve a better looking lawn (E).

At point A, an observer may not know what the next step is, let alone the last step, or the overall plan.

That is the major logical flaw in you stating that your assertions 'inevitably' follow.

Now, while I may have cast some doubt on the ease of defining and representing the 'English' in the post you refer to, I do not seek to destroy them, or even to deny that they exist. Rather to show my opinion that 'Englishness' is not as simple as you think it is. I am not 100% English, as I said - I am partly of Welsh, Irish, Scots and Jewish/Eastern European stock. But I am over 50% English as far as I can tell, and in cultural terms I am as English as anyone else I know.

Now, if you think that racism is an innate characteristic of the English, to the point that if it were removed but they were to remain the same in all other respects they would cease to be 'English', then I would have to state that I heartily disagree.

What is more, I would also like to get it across that I abhor racism from whatever the source, English, Asian, Black, whoever, and just as much.

Basically, what I'm saying is that we are not even at the A that you think we are. There is no intention, at least on my part or that of the UAF, to destroy the English (whoever they may be), and they are not starting off by saying that we should destroy their/our culture.

One thing you should also remember is that the English currently make up the vast majority of the population of the UK, and an even greater proportion of England itself, and as such it would take more like a full scale invasion to wipe them/us out, or even to begin a programme such as you seem to assume.

glad thereafter said...

I'm not going to get into a semantic argument about what fascism is, having already given two examples of fascist states.

I think that when you accuse people of something, you should be prepared to explain what you mean.

>Do the BNP or their supporters want to see a fascist regime?
I believe that a significant number of them do, yes. They, of course, will claim that this is not the case, but we should not ignore their past or the views of other like minded groups who are not so careful about their public image.

How many Tory, Labour and Liberal MPs and PMs of the past do you think could be quoted making quasi-fascist or racist statements? Heck, these parties used to be imperialistic and white-supremacist!

But yes, they have changed: they came to recognise native rights and the right to self-determination for the peoples of Africa and Asia, and to deny these rights to the native peoples of Britain. Quite an about-turn: but they are still racist.

>My conclusion follows Lemkin's comments quite inevitably and I think clearly.
No, they do not. Allow me to point out the flaws in your logic.
Your argument goes like this:


My argument doesn't go as you say it does. That is the 'major logical flaw' in your deconstruction.

Unite Against Fascism principally campaign against the nationalistic feeling and parties of White Brits. They do not call themselves Unite Against Nationalism because 'N' doesn't carry so powerful a moral charge as 'Fascism'.

Also, many of their members are nationalists themselves. Non-White members are often passionately devoted the native rights and homelands of their own peoples; and White members are often advocates for the ethnic-nationalisms of favoured ethnies like Jews, Palestinians, Kurds, Tibetans, etc.

I can give you a striking example of typical UAF racism. Hanif Leylabi is a very public and active member of the UAF, and the SWP who opposes the identitarian, collective, and nationalistic organising of the indigenous peoples of Britain.

Yet for his own ancestral people, Iranians, and regarding their national territory, and their right to control it totally and to enjoy ascendancy over non-indigenous peoples, he says this:

It will only ever grow…

As for the Arabs they can piss off. They migrated to Khuzestan, very few are indigenous.


His phrasing here, if not the sentiment, would see him booted out of the BNP; but it's understood within UAF and the SWP that non-White groups have national rights and conflicts of interests.

Their campaigns bring together those who merely wish to ensure that White peoples are not permitted national rights or to react defensively to conflicts of interest with non-Whites.

And as we have seen, they have the agreement of all the main parties.

Richard W. Symonds said...

Orwell wrote an essay : "What is Fascism", and found himself concluding this :

Fascist = Bully

I'll go with that.

By the way, what kind of newsmag is this, coming through my letterbox this morning, wrapped in a nice brown hand-written envelope - anonymously :

"EUROPEAN ACTION" - 'In Support of a National Party for Europe - "We are performing the role of those who prepare'

Ummmm...

It looks BNPish, but it's not...what is it...ah, here we are..."European Action is...designed to encourage a European consciousness on the lines of the ideas of Sir Oswald Mosley."

Well, Mosley formed the British Union of Fascists (BUF)...and his newspaper was called "Action"...and the West Sussex HQ was based in Marine Parade, Worthing....

Here is a revealing article : "The European Socialism of Sir Oswald Mosley". Ummmm

Now, Mr Mosley was an 'ally' (of sorts) of Mr Hitler, with his national Socialist Party (Nazism)...

So, are we to conclude this "European Action" is simply a Mosleyite Fascist newspaper, with leanings towards Nazism ?

Any ideas ?

Danivon said...

Dunno, Richard. Not seen anything like that myself.

Danivon said...

glad thereafter - The reason that I didn't want to get into a semantic debate on the definition of fascism is the same as not wanting a similar debate over the precise definition of pornography. I think we know it when we see it, and examples will illustrate what we mean with either word.

Now, UAF may have some people in it who I disagree with (in fact, I know it has Tory members for a start), so I can't be held to account for the statements of one person. If that's what he said, I disagree with it too.

Like I say, as far as I am concerned it is only fascism and its related movements which I want to oppose through the UAF locally. We have the BNP and others around, and they fit the bill as far as I can see, with their history and their activities. They claim to be 'nationalist', but as they are 'British Nationalists', I'd have thought that you would have an issue with them too - seeing as by implication they appear to deny the seperate soverign nature of the English nation.

Sorry, but I deal with logic all day long, and your logic is flawed. It's a common error, that a=>b may be true, but that doesn't mean that b=>a. It might, but it's not a truism.

The white people of the UK, whatever you want to call them (British, English etc) do have the rights to their culture. However, as their culture is dominant, there is little need to assert those rights. Now, those rights don't include the right to exclude or discriminate against others, which seems to be the main beef of the BNP.

Richard W. Symonds said...

I think you need to be aware of this "Europe Action" paper - in the light of your UAF affiliation.

As I read it now, it's definitely anti-Zionist...with BNP links.

Very pernicious...

Is it something to do with that 'fascist' type group who have formed in the EU - can't remember the name now...

Danivon said...

They have a website, to which I shall not link, which is basically saying that they aren't fascists, but follow Mosley in is post-war incarnation (when he was regarded as a fascist but scrupulously avoided claiming to be one).

Not with the BNP though, like many of the far right groups, they appear to have problems with the BNP's policy on Israel.

It does not appear to have any relation to the current hard-right grouping in the EU, other than that the Italian MSI was one of the parties which was involved in the National Party of Europe in 1962 (which drifted apart where the parties even remained in existence). The MSI is the forerunner of the Italian members of the 'Euronat' Group, which nominally does include the BNP. Euronat together with Ashley Mote make up the 'Identity, Sovereignty, Tradition' group.

No mention of the NPE being involved in it that I can see, and no mention of the NPE anywhere other than the European Action website and historical archives.

Richard W. Symonds said...

According to the writings in this "Europe Action" (Issue 11), they seem to be quite happy with the idea of being called "Fascists"...

...as was Mosley. He seems to have simply changed his pre-war "British Union of Fascists" (West Sussex HQ based in Marine Parade, Worthing - "The Munich of the South East") to "British Union".

Hardly a change of heart, Mr Mosley.

glad thereafter said...

The reason that I didn’t want to get into a semantic debate on the definition of fascism is the same as not wanting a similar debate over the precise definition of pornography. I think we know it when we see it, and examples will illustrate what we mean with either word.
[…]
Like I say, as far as I am concerned it is only fascism and its related movements which I want to oppose through the UAF locally. We have the BNP and others around, and they fit the bill as far as I can see, with their history and activities.


What is, and isn’t, pornography is a vastly more controversial question than you think, so that’s a very poor analogy. And your claim that the Soviet Union was fascist demonstrates that your own understanding of what constitutes fascism is quite unconventional.

So you haven’t convinced me that their potential ‘fascism’ is your problem with the BNP – what you object to, I think, is their nationalism. Indeed, your definition of fascism:

an ideology based on the supremacy of one group of society which controls the whole through autocratic and often totalitarian means

is precisely what you defend in your support of the ideologically multi-national regime over subject national groups.

Now, UAF may have some people in it who I disagree with (in fact, I know it has Tory members for a start), so I can’t be held to account for the statements of one person. If that’s what he said, I disagree with it too.

It is you who holds others to account for the behaviour and opinions of third parties, I’m trying to get you to see how unreasonable that is. I think you need objective criteria for attributing racism (or fascism) to people and organisations, and then to judge all parties equally. What happens if you don’t is that you fall back on your own prejudices – and never examine them – and you follow the mob.

They claim to be ‘Nationalists’, but as they are ‘British Nationalists’, I’d have thought that you would have an issue with them too – seeing as by implication they appear to deny the separate soverign nature of the English nation.

I have that problem with them, but I don’t call them – or you – ‘fascist’ because they want British rule over England. And I think they are moving in the right direction, more talk of the British peoples and such like.

Sorry, but I deal with logic all day long, and your logic is flawed. It’s a common error.that a=>b may be true, but that doesn’t mean that b=>a. It might, but it’s not a truism.

I’m not sure if you mean your work requires logic – in which case I’d think everybody’s does, or if you are claiming a round the clock soundness of thinking - in which case I register my doubts.

I say again: read Lemkin and my summary. Your claim that I assert ‘anti-racists wish to ultimately destroy each race and the differences between them’ is a straw-man - I’m an anti-racist myself and those ends are what my politics guard against.

The white people of the UK, whatever you want to call them (British, English etc)do have the right to their culture. However, as their culture is dominant, there is little need to assert those rights. Now, those rights don’t include the right to exclude or discriminate against others, which seems to be the main beef of the BNP.

The White people of the UK, are only that: the White people of the UK. They are mainly English but some are Welsh, some are Greek. Of course they all ‘have a right’ to a ‘culture’. The dominant culture is avowedly non-White-specific in character, and where a clash of cultures is racialised in Britain, it’s never the White viewpoint which dominates, for it is never expressed. None dare speak for Whites as Whites.

But culture is secondary issue: I claim they also have a right to their homelands, and from there the right to exclude and discriminate against non-nationals.

It was our agreeing to grant those rights to Asians and Africans which saw nationalists like Gandhi and Kenyatta win back their lands for their peoples. Your main beef against the BNP seems to be that they might extend those rights to peoples who happen to be White.

glad thereafter said...

Following Hanif Leylabi, example No. 2 of anti-fascist racism danivon, and see how it entirely escaped you:

Richard W. Symonds said...
I think you need to be aware of this "Europe Action" paper - in the light of your UAF affiliation.
As I read it now, it's definitely anti-Zionist...


See - it's wrong to oppose the ethnic nationalism of non-Europeans, even fascist. Yet it's right - and anti-fascist - to oppose the ethnic-nationalisms of the native British peoples.

Danivon said...

GT - I am, in a sense, opposed to Zionism (and also to Arab Nationalism, by the way, and most especially to the virulent extremist Islamic political movements). Your attempt at a second 'example' falls flat - No moral judgement was made by Richard or anyone else on the NPE's apparent anti-Zionist leanings.

And we don't need to reclaim our 'homeland'. We are the overwhelming majority culture in it. There is no sense whatsoever in that the dominant culture of the UK or England is 'non-white'. If you could back up such an outlandish claim I'd be very impressed.

You claim for me that I want a dominant multinational regime - I haven't said that I do, because I don't. You claim for me that I want to remove the English culture as a step towards merging it with any and all cultures and nationalities. That is not true either.

All I was trying to do in my England post was to try and tease out what 'England' really is. I am still not sure, even given your copious verbiage. Instead of attacking what you think I believe, try just defining what 'English' is (in terms of people and culture) and how it is distinct from other nationalities - without just referring to a previous text please.

The BNP are fascist and they are racist. These are different 'isms' which often coincide but don't have to. Therefore it is not 'fascist' to be racist (but, it is still morally wrong to be prejudiced on the basis of race).

Richard W. Symonds said...

Orwell is pretty good : "England My England"

I am a patriot, but I am not nationalist. There is a chasm of difference.

"Europe Action" is definitely nationalist and fascist - using Oswald Mosley's ideas, and attempting to make people identify as "Europeans"...pretty much like Orwell's 1984 superpower "Eurasia".

It looks like Mosley's 1930 New Party - but European not British.

I detect "the cloven hoof of fascism" - as did many (eventually) in the 1930's.

Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing.

glad thereafter said...

I am, in a sense, opposed to Zionism (and also to Arab Nationalism, by the way, and most especially to the virulent extremist Islamic political movements). Your attempt at a second 'example' falls flat - No moral judgement was made by Richard or anyone else on the NPE's apparent anti-Zionist leanings.

Frankly, I don't quite believe that you believe that.

Richard W. Symonds said...
I think you need to be aware of this "Europe Action" paper - in the light of your UAF affiliation.
As I read it now, it's definitely anti-Zionist...


In what sense? Extremist, or simply traditional?

The virulence of anti-nationalism poses more of a threat to the native peoples of Europe than Islam. Without it the 'extremist' Muslims of 911 and 7/7 would not have been in the West. Also, their historic grievances against the West would not exist for we would always have respected their sovereignty.

And we don't need to reclaim our 'homeland'. We are the overwhelming majority culture in it. There is no sense whatsoever in that the dominant culture of the UK or England is 'non-white'. If you could back up such an outlandish claim I'd be very impressed.

The dominant culture in the UK is something you claim in your English post cannot be defined, but say is explicitly non-racial:

"Here's where even my polemic starts to show up how hopeless it is to define what is solely 'English' (or even British) culture. And do we all share the same culture? …What do we eat - Curry. Not always of course. We might go for a pizza, or a Chinese, or a burger perhaps…. Here's where even my polemic starts to show up how hopeless it is to define what is solely 'English' (or even British) culture… English culture borrows heavily from external influences… Maybe this is the core of out culture? … this begs the question 'who is "we"?'… The final question that always springs to my mind but is never answered is 'What IS our culture?'… I identify more with some 'brown' people than I do with some 'white' people because of the nature of our relationships…"

You do not have a consistent position because you do not have a consistent philosophy. You use words like racism, fascism, and culture as political tools, to be applied here where a particular condition is unwelcome, but not there where the same condition is no problem for you.

The dominant culture of Britain is that provided by the major media, the state education system, the political class: it is uniformly committed to a British identity explicitly non-racial in character. My people do not enjoy control of our homeland dan, and our collective voice is never heard – yet foreign voices never shut up, and the power elite never stop consulting them.

You expect us to be content with the fact that the people on TV speak the same language as us and our favourite foods are stocked in the supermarkets; that would not have satisfied Gandhi and Kenyatta, and if you insist it is all that we are due, then that is all imperialists need provide for their conquered to justify their ongoing subjugation of peoples.

But that's not what matters is it dan? (At least not for Asians and Africans.)

You claim for me that I want a dominant multinational regime - I haven't said that I do, because I don't.

Do you oppose my English nationalism?

You claim for me that I want to remove the English culture as a step towards merging it with any and all cultures and nationalities. That is not true either.

No, I claim that the politics you support and proselytise replaces Englishmen with aliens, and silences English voices opposed to this dispossession.

All I was trying to do in my England post was to try and tease out what 'England' really is. I am still not sure, even given your copious verbiage. Instead of attacking what you think I believe, try just defining what 'English' is (in terms of people and culture) and how it is distinct from other nationalities - without just referring to a previous text please.

England is a territory dan. An English culture would be the culture of the English people (as I said in the English thread – a culture is the collective ideas, customs, products, and identifications which a given population can expect or hope to pass on to the next generation). And the English are the population whose collective ancestry and history and is outlined in the definition I posted.

The English are distinct from other peoples in precisely the ways that all other peoples in their aggregate are distinct from other peoples: history, culture, identity, and genes. This is why I said in the English thread that it was a peculiar choice – to make the English out to be a particularly nebulous entity - when our history, culture, continuity of national identity, and genetic singularity is remarkably well-recorded compared to most ethnies.

The BNP are fascist and they are racist. These are different 'isms' which often coincide but don't have to. Therefore it is not 'fascist' to be racist (but, it is still morally wrong to be prejudiced on the basis of race).

Personally, I suspect that few if any among the BNP leadership or support is 'fascist,' in the sense that political scientists rather than political-smearists would define it.

I do suspect that most of the leadership and support is 'racist' in the rather meaningless sense of favouring their own people, but equally I think that is true of every ethnic minority group in the country and all of their organisations. To that extent, the BNP is the only organisation that welcomes normal people who happen to be White.

You are using terms you seem unable to defend empirically to attack subjectively selected political opponents. If you allow yourself to do this, and found yourself in power, the autocratic and totalitarian methods of oppression would soon follow.

Try principle and objectivity dan.

Take a step back from the fevered atmosphere of constructing a new society, and think a little more deeply and less passionately about these issues.

A lot hangs on how you and millions like you answer the question regarding ethnic nationalism.