Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons are a pair of silly
stooges, while the EDL is just a bunch of thugs. Why are there no Far Right
intellectuals in Britain? Is that a ridiculous question? Not at all.
There are Front National intellectuals in France, one of whom has just gone out with a bang. There are intellectuals in the Austrian Third Lager. There are intellectuals on the Far Right in Italy and in the Iberian world. But you will search the British scene in vain for The Thinking Man’s Fascist, his effusions worthy or even capable of serious engagement.
There are Front National intellectuals in France, one of whom has just gone out with a bang. There are intellectuals in the Austrian Third Lager. There are intellectuals on the Far Right in Italy and in the Iberian world. But you will search the British scene in vain for The Thinking Man’s Fascist, his effusions worthy or even capable of serious engagement.
Neo-Paganism never really took off even in Nazi Germany;
attempts to redefine culture in its terms, with the Winter Solstice replacing
Christmas and what have you, were spectacularly unsuccessful. Alain de Benoist
or Dominique Venner would have no more success in Britain.
Here, the whole thing would stand even less of a chance than it did in Germany. We have a more highly developed sense of the absurd, which is good, and a tendency to see all manifestations of folk-culture in those terms, which is very bad, since we were rich in it to the point of extravagance at least until the Reformation.
Here, the whole thing would stand even less of a chance than it did in Germany. We have a more highly developed sense of the absurd, which is good, and a tendency to see all manifestations of folk-culture in those terms, which is very bad, since we were rich in it to the point of extravagance at least until the Reformation.
We do have a Liberal Protestant movement such as, in its
rootlessness and lack of specific doctrinal content, proved such easy prey to
the Nazis. But ours, by something not less than a miracle, instead maintained
close ties to the opposition that was figures such as Barth, perhaps because it
saw in neo-orthodoxy its own fondness for retaining at least the vocabulary of
historic formulations, however dangerously that vocabulary might be redefined.
However, the heresy of intégrisme, so
fundamental to the Fascism of the Latin world, is almost unknown to any of our
Catholic subcultures. I doubt that we had any more before Vatican II than we
have now, although intégrisme is so pernicious precisely because it
looks like, and very forcefully believes itself to be, traditional Catholicism.
Whereas the intégriste Fascist in that tendency’s French heartland can present himself, accurately or otherwise, as the true heir of the legitimate state overthrown in 1789 and of the very long-lasting tradition of mass resistance to that overthrow, no one here can really say that, accurately or otherwise, about 1688, and extremely few would wish to.
Whereas the intégriste Fascist in that tendency’s French heartland can present himself, accurately or otherwise, as the true heir of the legitimate state overthrown in 1789 and of the very long-lasting tradition of mass resistance to that overthrow, no one here can really say that, accurately or otherwise, about 1688, and extremely few would wish to.
Much more perniciously, since they are vastly more
numerous, we do have people who resemble those Bavarian Catholics who were
active in the early Nazi Party in Munich. Looking back to Döllinger, they
defined themselves as Catholics in the sense of belonging to a community of
faith across the world and throughout the ages rather than in terms of perfect
submission to the Petrine See as that See requires.
They strongly affirmed the purported autonomy of the German Church, including the control of Her affairs by the activist laity on the basis of their financial contributions (in Germany, the church tax system) and by means of quasi-parliamentary institutions. Does any of this sound familiar?
Those of such mind were key to the emergence of Nazism until it was kicked out of Bavaria following the failure of the Beer Hall Putsch. After that, it became a movement and a party with its base in staunchly Protestant areas of Germany and within the fiercely anticlerical Third Lager in Austria.
They strongly affirmed the purported autonomy of the German Church, including the control of Her affairs by the activist laity on the basis of their financial contributions (in Germany, the church tax system) and by means of quasi-parliamentary institutions. Does any of this sound familiar?
Those of such mind were key to the emergence of Nazism until it was kicked out of Bavaria following the failure of the Beer Hall Putsch. After that, it became a movement and a party with its base in staunchly Protestant areas of Germany and within the fiercely anticlerical Third Lager in Austria.
This country retains a monarchy, commanding the very
intense loyalty of the lower middle class that is any Fascist movement’s base,
as it is certainly the BNP’s and the EDL’s. Fascists do not like monarchies,
and in fact the BNP wishes to abolish Britain’s. But they draw equally on the
absolutism of the bourgeois republic created paradigmatically in France, and on
the princely absolutism developed out of pre-Revolutionary sources, especially
Jean Bodin, in reaction against the Revolution and its many imitations.
They combine and focus them both in a Leader figure who
is neither a prince, nor drawn from and answerable to republican institutions
(in the broader sense of a res publica) such as a strong Parliament.
He characteristically bypasses such institutions by means of the referendum.
And he performs the ceremonial functions that would have been performed by the
abolished monarchy or local nobility, squirarchy or whatever.
Had there still been all those kings, princes, grand dukes and the rest doing their stuff in their apparently funny uniforms across German-speaking Europe or the Italian Peninsula, then there would have been no gap for Hitler or Mussolini to fill. There is no such gap in Britain.
Had there still been all those kings, princes, grand dukes and the rest doing their stuff in their apparently funny uniforms across German-speaking Europe or the Italian Peninsula, then there would have been no gap for Hitler or Mussolini to fill. There is no such gap in Britain.
As with the monarchy, so with the War. Griffin had a
photograph of Churchill next to him on his Party Election Broadcast. He is
welcome to Churchill, but that is another story. Ridiculously, a party drawn
from this country’s tiny little world of Hitler-loving weirdoes and misfits has
to electioneer by posing as the heir of the struggle of those whom Hitler blockaded
and Blitzed.
Griffin cannot say, even were he capable of doing so, that they should never have been put in that position, nor bemoan the collapse of morality during the War, since his supporters warmly endorse that collapse and its consequences throughout (yes, throughout) the post-War period.
Griffin cannot say, even were he capable of doing so, that they should never have been put in that position, nor bemoan the collapse of morality during the War, since his supporters warmly endorse that collapse and its consequences throughout (yes, throughout) the post-War period.
Nor can Griffin bemoan, even if he were capable of doing
so, the loss of British power in the world, or the loosening of ties with
former Empire countries, since the West Indians, in particular, came here on
British passports from countries most of which retain the Queen as Head of
State to this day and several of which remain British by choice.
Whereas the Republic of South Africa was proclaimed as an act of anti-British revenge, while its Rhodesian satrapy was born in treason against the Queen. Just as there is no equivalent of the pro-Vichy tradition on which a BNP or EDL intellectual might draw, so there is no equivalent of the pro-OAS tradition, either. The pieds-noirs wanted to stay French. Ian Smith wanted to stop being British.
Whereas the Republic of South Africa was proclaimed as an act of anti-British revenge, while its Rhodesian satrapy was born in treason against the Queen. Just as there is no equivalent of the pro-Vichy tradition on which a BNP or EDL intellectual might draw, so there is no equivalent of the pro-OAS tradition, either. The pieds-noirs wanted to stay French. Ian Smith wanted to stop being British.
All in all, it is no wonder that there is no British
publication comparable to Éléments. Never mind to Rivarol.
There is no British Dominique Venner. Mercifully, there cannot be.
Brilliant article.
ReplyDeleteIt is indeed a testament to the British sense of humour and of proportion (usually connected) and the tolerance at the heart of the British character that, no matter how disillusioned the British people are with their political classes, we never resort to Far Right parties like the Continentals.
No matter how bad our economy gets, or how much the Parliamentary Liberal Elite scorn the British people, the BNP can never profit from it.
The fact disenchanted voters are migrating to UKIP (and not to Britain's many equivalents of Golden Dawn) tells us alot about the fundamental decency of the British character.
No party with racialist policies, or a racialist Constitution, could ever win popular support here.
The difference between England and Britain must surely also play a part? It is very difficult to whip oneself into a blut und boden frenzy about a country so obviously "manufactured" as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is why the SNP and the EDL are both equally dangerous, whereas the BNP are just a bunch of clowns.
ReplyDeleteDid you ever read Michael Walker's Scorpion?
ReplyDelete