by Adam Bienkov, 22/12/08
It is easy to dismiss the BNP because they have been so successful branded by political opponents and opportunists as a party (the party) of "racists" and neo-Nazis, which there may well be some grounds for, but not, I think, for the blanket condemnation they and their whole political program are subjected to, which to me reeks of the kind of "moral supremacy" once used to defend (also, for a long time, very effectively and successfully) the dominance of the Catholic Church and its particular beliefs and ideology.
Of course, when an ideology (any ideology) is as completely dominant as Catholicism was in medieval Europe, it is not recognised as an ideology, to which there might be acceptable alternatives. It is seen as the Truth (the Gospel truth) and any opposing or alternative ideologies as "evil", their proponents as "non-believers" or "heretics", not to be listened to or in any way associated with, but dismissed and condemned (even burned! For the sake of their poor, otherwise damned, souls).
So what is the ideology (obviously, no longer Catholicism or the Marxism that dominated eastern Europe for a while) that now completely dominates the whole western world?
The sanctity of private property (i.e. capital as a means of exploiting society), perpetual economic growth and consumer capitalism, perhaps? Or representative democracy?
They both come a good second and third, but there's another ideology which takes FIRST place, because still so completely dominant and unquestioned (because questioning it is forbidden - a true, modern-day successor to medieval Catholicism). It is the ideology, barely recognised as such, but accepted as the gospel Truth of "colourblindness" (indifference to ethnic difference), of "race doesn't matter", being of no social or political significance, except to "racists". It is in fact the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which originally it was an understandable overreaction to, but became consolidated in its present extreme form by political and economic opportunism.
It is this ideology and dogma, more than anything else, that the BNP challenges, and is why it is so ruthlessly dismissed and condemned (irrespective of what it and its members really stand for), just as anyone (or group) who challenged Catholic dogma in the Middle Ages were.
All false (untrue) ideologies and dogmas come to an end sooner or later, whereby, what they are replaced by is not unimportant, especially in respect to the case in question. What will the ideology of "colourblindness", of "race doesn't matter" be replaced by (because human beings, naturally enough - when they do not suppress and deny it, even to themselves, because state ideology demands it of them - are NOT indifferent to ethnic difference, and race (one's ethnic origins and history) DOES matter, for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group identity)? Will there be a return to the other extreme? Or will we manage to find a rational and civilised compromise?
This post, I hope, will help to advance the chances of the latter.
I posted a comment, above, which expressed the opinion that "race matters", i.e. that ethnicity is important (when not suppressed and denied, even to oneself), for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group identity, which has been removed by the moderator.
[Olching] has condemned me as a "racist" for it, which is about as personally abusive as one can be (thank you for that, [Olching]), but his post the moderation has allowed to stand. My defense (for not being a racist) is in my post which has been deleted. Thus, my request to the moderation to please reinstate it (there is nothing in it, I assure you, which offends against Cif Talk Policy), so that it can be read and others can judge for themselves whether I am to be considered a racist or not. It would also facilitate discussion (which is what Cif is supposed to be about) of the important (racist? I think not) ideas I express in it.
In the meantime, here's a LINK to my deleted post on my own homepage.
[Olching], I've just reread your responses to my posts, the first and most important of which, I'm very pleased and thankful to note, has been reinstated by the moderation, because it wasn't quite as "racist" as you would have everyone believe.
In fact, anyone who takes the trouble to read my first post carefully can see that it is not remotely racist, even in a "post-modern" way, whatever that is supposed to mean, but DOES question state racial ideology, which you obviously embrace and identify with yourself, with such passion and conviction that it caused you to foam at the mouth almost (judging from your words) in your condemnation of me, which failed, however, to address any of the - I think, very interesting - points I made.
Although, I must say, that the manifest intolerance and aggressiveness in your response to me questioning your (and state) racial ideology tends to confirm the validity of my comparison with medieval Christian ideology and its defense, through intimidation, by the Catholic Church.
I do not espouse "social Darwinism", twisted or otherwise, as [Olching] claims, but my own human-evolutionary understanding (Darwinian, to be sure) of our society and civilisation, which I'm very happy for anyone to take an interest in (just follow the link).