This blog was started, somewhat as a joke, railing against broadly the old right. By this I mean the established right-wing media, tabloid opinion formers, specifically (as the title of the blog, my twitter handle, and the content of much of what I have previously written attests) the Daily Mail.
The reactionary nature of the paper has been much discussed, and continues to be by much better writers than I. The insidious xenophobia, regressive attitudes toward women and minorities (with minor exceptions, which only stand to prove the rule) and dangerous presentation of opinion as verifiable fact contained in the Mail, and other similar publications remains a nasty wart on the face of Britain.
While such journalism feeds into opinion forming, especially among the Right, there are other issues at hand.
This short post examines the New Right, a movement presenting itself as measured, rational, and above all opposed to ‘Islamists’, ‘Statists’ and ‘Leftists’ (to name a few of their targets). Sort salvos of dialogue aimed at members of this nascent movement demonstrate a disparate band of ideologies, sometimes seemingly random, other times exceedingly well thought out.
What do I mean by ‘the New Right’? In short I am talking about the EDL, about the selection of Right Wing new parties that are available – English Democrats, British Freedom and those others which are splintered from the movements of the 80s and 90s – the children of the BNP and their ilk, who however, will not necessarily align themselves with that movement. I mean the organisations which have emerged in the last ten or some years in opposition to Islamists and the Left. These then are not 'new' per se, but rather have elements of newness about them.
In discussing this lose grouping it is important to define (some) of their apparent beliefs. It is, I believe, entirely wrong to drop the term ‘racist’ with regard to the New Right. It is obvious that some people who may align with the group do, or have held racist views – not least through previous alignment with such organisations as the British National Party, and other established (dare I say ‘traditional’) British Racist organisations.
The New Right is a movement that places cultural differences over racial differences. While it would be foolish to claim that there is no cultural difference between, say, France and Saudi Arabia, Britain and Germany, Pakistan and Iran, culture is mobile. It is a very difficult path to take, as
For the New Right justification of beliefs is not often established through the channels of ‘the main stream media’, but is created in the echo-chamber of myopic and single-issue reporting from rightwing fringes throughout Britain, Europe and further afield. I do not expect engagement from the New Right. If anything I expect to be ignored (by everyone?!) When a movement can so easily dismiss opposition through a central pillar of their ideology then that movement becomes difficult to both engage with, and effectively challenge.
Often, the perceived opponents of those aligned to the New Right ideologies are diverse, and at times seemingly contradictory. It would be logically impossible (I believe) to tackle the ideologies, groups, religions and individuals that the New Right oppose as a coherent whole. As such I shall break down the arguments, as I understand them, into manageable chunks (think of BBC bitesize revision), and attempt to string them together in sensible structure. If anyone associated with the New Right Ideology wishes to tackle my view of them, please contact me, write a response and we can discuss, sensibly, the misconceptions that I may have.
Liberals:
Liberalism, the New Right believe, has created an atmosphere of political correctness, and has been engaged in a project to import foreign cultures into Britain. The Liberal agenda has created a generation (or more) of feckless, disenchanted Britons who, silenced by political correctness, stultified by benefits and nannied by the state are incapable/unwilling to hold their politicians to account, while the communist/socialist elite (?) attempt to turn Britain/Europe into an Islamic Caliphate for some end or another. The New Right see ‘Liberals’ as exploited ‘Useful Idiots’ who are unknowingly complicit in their own cultural suicide at the hands of Islam.
Communists /Anarco-Communists:
In the minds of the New Right, if not in reality, Communists have infiltrated all the offices of power across the western world and are fundamentally opposed to Western Cultures. They wish to smash centuries of tradition, something that they do through encouraging mass immigration and dependence on the state.
Islamists/Militant Islam:
Islamists/Militant Muslims (or any variation thereof) are seen from this ideology as aiming to take over Christian Europe, and expand their religious and moral authority throughout the west. They are aided in this endeavour by Liberals and Communists who (as I understand) wish for nothing so much as the destruction of the Western model of politics, so much that they would willingly replace it with an autocratic Theocracy which holds views incompatible with the basic tenants of Communism rather than continue to live in a western democracy. This is something that the communist elites (what is this – the 1970s?) have been working towards for an unspecified length of time.
Socialists:
Similarly to the Communists, Socialists and the ideology of socialism infests all (mainstream) political parties operating in western democracies. The socialist ideology is opposed, in the same way the New Right see Communists, Muslims and Liberals, to the nation state. Which brings us to internationalists.
Internationalists:
If one takes the nation state as the natural base from which political ideologies should emerge, and also consider the nation state to be a natural, established and tangible ‘thing’ then politics (in whatever form it takes) should be used to defend the borders. The New Right appear, largely, to approach the Nation State as the primary level at which politics should be performed (with some suggesting that power should be devolved to the lowest possible level, and others strongly suggesting that the nation, but not the state should be the focus of politics.
For the New Right, any suggestion that geopolitical borders are permeable, historically and socially defined holds no sway. Despite a cry that a defence of a ‘culture’ tied to a geopolitical entity is their aim, settling outside the borders of one’s own country (of birth?, of parents’ birth?) is seen as being in opposition to the aims of the New Right. People have places for this movement, and it is defined by their culture, and by their place of birth (it would seem). The question is not White, or Brown, or Yellow or whatever, the question is ‘are you British (English, Irish …)?’ The answer to which can only be given through adherence to an indefinable collection of actions, thoughts and beliefs that constitute ‘Britishness’ (a subject to which I will return)
Perverts:
(Opposition to) Sexual perversions plays an important part in the beliefs of some (although by no means all) of the New Right. The extreme end of this is typified by the bizarre exchange that I had with Lee Barnes (ex-BNP ‘legal Eagle’) and notorious nationalist, linked here.
Mainstream media:
Information received from Mainstream sources (perhaps with the exception of some tabloids, although this itself can be called in to question) cannot, for the New Right, be trusted. Information gained and received through ‘official sources’ (the BBC, of course, being the worst offender) is delivered through a ‘leftist’ prism, and is at worst tantamount to (attempted) brainwashing.
This position is for the New Right a valuable one. This means that information can be chosen based not on veracity, but rather on adherence to presupposed belief structures. Opposition can be silenced because of an inability/unwillingness to engage with the news sources used by the New Right, and arguments which run contrary to the opinions expressed as fact in this echo-chamber can be dismissed by the New Right as merely liberal-biased brainwashing.
Britishness and the New Right
Britishness is an identity of compromise. For many people it would be absurd to view British identity either as fixed, or as wholly indivisible from the culture of the world. Britain was (once) a superpower. The sun never set on the Empire, and the people of Britain travelled the world, settled, civilised, and fought for the crown and the commonwealth.
British History, and World History and inextricably linked. The history of development, science, conflict, peace, religion is the history of Britain. The country made great discoveries and leaps, the country made great mistakes. However, as any British person knows – once countries are entwined, they are always entwined, be that for good, or for ill.
Immigration to Britain is historical fact, and immigrant identities feed in to British identities. Xenophobia, as opposed to racism appears to underpin the thought of the New Right. Culture, rather than the 'race' or 'ethnicity' of an individual is at stake – the New Right, it would appear have fully internalised, and agreed with, the idea of the 'clash of civilisations'. Anything that does not fit their own model of western (British) civilisation is, not only foreign, but also potentially dangerous to the nation.
Immigration and Culturalist Principles
For people who consider themselves fully engaged with mainstream politics in the UK, who accept that there are issues with the system, who may or may not disagree with the political ‘ideologies’ (or lack thereof) of parties it may be difficult to understand the seduction of the New Right.
The movement, as has been well documented, plays on legitimate and demonstrably real grievances, and, couched in the language of culture, framed by a context of un(der)employment and political disenfranchisement, single issues that may appear to offer a 'quick fix' fills a gap. The New Right parties and movements (the ‘Freedom’ movements, the ‘Defence’ Leagues) can, and do, use the language of swamped cultures and defending British/English/Welsh/Scottish rights to mobilise support of various levels from those who, to be frank, have been often ignored by the political mainstream of Britain. While it may be reasonable to argue that certain opinions are not represented in the mainstream because they are abhorrent, in opposition to the principles of British society, or merely pragmatically unworkable (among other reasons), this defence will not work for some on the New Right.
Under-representation of views by the main political parties is seen as a conspiracy to silence certain beliefs, as opposed to the end result of decades (if not centuries) of compromise and pragmatic policy making.
The new right, as I have established are not posed as a racist grouping, rather, I would suggest they are culturalist; opposed to cultures that are not of their own country. This is difficult to grasp for people who recognise the heterogeneity of culture, but prejudice based on unknowable ‘culture’ appears to be the central tenant of the New Right. Yes, some members use demonstrably Racist language, and engage in demonstrably racist deeds, but to call them ‘racist’ as an insult, or even apparently legitimate description, feeds an understanding of themselves as being put-upon, of attempts to silence them. I for one do not want to silence the New Right, I want to open the floor to them, and to legitimately and openly address their opinions with facts. It is not that I think that I can do anything to change their minds, but I genuinely wish to understand them.
Closing
To say that the New Right pose a threat to liberal democratic principles would be wrong. The movement (As such as it is) is too far on the outskirts of British political thought to ever entice more than a small quantity of supporters. Rather they represent a new(ish) challenge to the system. How can such opinions be incorporated, or at very least addressed, while retaining the political stability of Britain.
This post represents a challenge to the New Right to explain themselves. To what extent is the outside world’s view of you wrong? What do you offer, and what has the mainstream missed?
To the mainstream, to the ‘Left’ to the ‘Centre’ to the ‘Right’ – Do you agree with me? Do you feel that I have misinterpreted this vocal minority? Have I given them too much thought?
I hope to continue writing in this vein over the coming months. If you’ve enjoyed this, pass it on, if you hate it, sorry for wasting your time.
Any mistakes, failings and misunderstandings in this post are mine alone.
