Why there’s Nothing British about the BNP’s (British National Party) “Christian values”

There has been an inordinate amount of outrage online relating to this small article in Dutch News today:-

Christians can’t vote for Wilders, say vicars

A Christian cannot vote for Geert Wilders’ anti-immigration party PVV, say 75% of church leaders in a poll of 1,200 ministers and church workers in the Nederlands Dagblad.

The ministers represent a cross-section of all the Netherlands’ Protestant churches, representing 2.3 million people, the paper says.

One third of the people polled said there were people who supported Wilders in their communities and 5% said Wilders had a lot of support.

Wilders and the PVV’s views contradict Christianity,’ one minister told the paper.

As you will note from comments on this article, there is little sympathy for these church leaders simply stating that Christians cannot vote for Geert Wilders, and the accusation that these leaders are “out of touch”.

Church leaders in the UK have made similar comments in recent times relating to the British National Party. Most notably in July last year, BNP members were banned from joining the Methodist Church,

It was back in October that a joint statement was issued by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, stating that; “Christians have been deeply disturbed by the conscious adoption by the BNP  of the language of our faith“.

Towards the end of last year the Archbishop of Wales Barry Morgan became embroiled in a furious war of words with the BNP, over the far-right party’s claim to represent “Christian values”.

We also had the embarrassing episode whereby, David North a Churchwarden from Melton Mowbray, was bullied into resigning, after church leaders deemed that his membership of the British National Party (BNP) was “incompatible” with Christianity.

The truth is that I do not believe that church leaders should be banning or discriminating against folks who vote for, or are members of, any legal political body, no matter how distasteful we may find their “politics”.

This may sound a little ironic to regular readers, as I have often posted rebuttals of the BNP claims to represent Christianity, especially articles written by Edmund Standing, see; here, here, here & here.

My point in saying this, is that it is pointless church leaders simply saying Christians mustn’t be involved with political parties such as the BNP, they must make a strong case as to why this is so.

I personally know of some Christians who are leaning towards the BNP right now. These are good folk, who are utterly disillusioned with the “main” political parties on a number of issues, especially, immigration, the perceived rise of Islamic extremism and the erosion of a “Christian British cultural identity”. Readers have to be aware that as Christians we are acutely aware of the horrific persecution of our brothers and sisters in Islamic lands, which gives additional impetus to the fear of the rise of Islamic extremism in this country.

The BNP are cunningly attempting to fill a vacuum and tap in to a Christian sense of abandonment by the “main” political parties, and have gone as far as to clone and hijack Christianity through the Rev West West’s Christian Council of Britain. Do take the time to read the interesting comments on this blog relating to the Rev Robert West, including some from Rev West himself.

The British National Party (BNP) candidate styles himself as Rev.

I agree with the Communities Secretary John Denham, who last October called on faith groups to “nail the lie that the BNP is a “Christian party”, however, this does not take place by “bashing” those Christians who have been duped by the BNP, but by informing them and peeling off the skin of the BNP Christian claims.

I’ll say publicly that at one stage I was personally leaning toward the BNP, until I began reading articles written by Edmund Standing, who worked tirelessly to highlight the inconsistency of the BNP’s Christian claims (even though he himself is an atheist), but sadly has now stopped this work (tired of swimming in the sewers), which left a worrying gaping hole.

Thankfully, the website “There is nothing British about the BNP” has picked up the gauntlet today:-

Why there’s Nothing British about the BNP’s “Christian values”

Nick Griffin and the British National Party are keen to portray themselves as on the sides of traditional British culture.  They see a gap in the market that they can fill. While other parties surrender to multiculturalism, Islam, and politically correct secularism, the BNP stand up for traditional British Christianity. This is nonsense. There is nothing Christian about the BNP.

On the BBC’s ‘Question Time’ programme, British National Party leader Nick Griffin stated: ‘If Muslims do stay in this country they must remember that Britain is essentially a fundamentally British and Christian country’. The BNP is a ‘Christian’ party that can save ‘Christian culture’

The BNP have created a front organisation called the ‘Christian Council of Britain’, headed by BNP activist and electoral candidate Robert West who leads religious services at various BNP events, including the party’s ‘Red, White & Blue’ and reportedly preaches on topics such as ‘the importance of nationalism’ and how “homosexuals do greatly err”. For West, a multi-racial society is a form of ‘Holocaust’, with immigration used to create “Lebensraum” for the Third  World. Despite initially denying any connection with the BNP, West has admitted that the BNP “encouraged and facilitated” its establishment.

Why the BNP are not Christian

-          There’s nothing Christian about the BNP’s ethics. For Jesus Christ, humanity was all part of one family. Christianity from the outset taught a universal message which dissolved the idea of race or nation, teaching that it is of no significance to God. He said that we should love our neighbour, preach the good news and understanding to all nations. He taught the parable of the Good Samaritan, to show our true neighbours were not just those from the same race. Most of all, he abhorred violence and the hatred that is fascism’s speciality.

-          The BNP use Christianity as an excuse to attack Muslims. Rather than refer to the actual teachings of Christ, the BNP’s favoured role model are the Crusaders. In a letter, Nick Griffin wrote “We will never allow our children to become a minority in our homeland! We will fight to the bitter end, just like our Crusader ancestors, to preserve our Christian culture and heritage. The spirit of the Medieval Knights lives on in all of us!”

-          The BNP’s use Christianity as an excuse for their homophobia. British fascism has a history of extreme homophobia. While the party’s policy is no longer officially to ban homosexual activity, they are always keen to claim that homosexuals are an affront to Britain’s ‘Christian heritage’. 

-          The BNP’s real ideology is pagan. Christianity, of course, is a “foreign import”, and for the extreme activists within the BNP inner circle, like all other imports it must be purged.

The BNP’s Foreign Affairs spokesman Arthur Kemp wrote in his March of Titans that “the introduction of Christianity has to count as the single greatest ideological catastrophe to ever strike Europe.”

Ever since Himmler’s obsession with the occult, there has been a strain of Paganism with fascism, as zealots attempt to reclaim a purely European religion.

Lee Barnes, the BNP’s legal director, is a particular fan: ‘Christianity is a semitic religion, it is creature [sic] of the deserts of the Middle East not the forests of the Northern Europe [sic] and its symbol the cross is an instrument of torture not of living redemption’. In place of Christianity, Barnes advocates Odinism, the worship of the Norse pagan gods of pre-Christian Europe, and he connects the Odinic ‘tree of life’ (Yggdrasil) with a religion based on race: ‘The roots represent our descent from the Gods and our connection to the Earth, the trunk represents our shared European racial heritage, the main branches of the tree our nations and tribes, the twigs on each branch represent each family unit and each single leaf symbolises an individual life’.

Tags: , , ,

51 Responses to “Why there’s Nothing British about the BNP’s (British National Party) “Christian values””

  1. Silly Kuffar Says:

    And the Loony Left Wing Christians will be the first to be beheaded when Militant Islam gets a grip of this country.
    Instead of attacking true Christians ahow about attacking the Islamists and thier part in the RACIL VIOLENCE meted out to the WHITE, CHRISTIAN population by a GROWING and STRENGTHENING ISLAM IN BRITAIN.


  2. Silly Kuffar Says:

    How do you go about filling your churches ?
    Why are most empty Churces being converted into Mosques ?
    When will the SICK Church realise they have no future under ISLAMIC LAW in this country ?

    Your Churches are empty, your congregations have dissapeared.

  3. Silly Kuffar Says:

    What do you have to say on this matter ?
    Why is Rowan Williams a SATANIST ?

  4. Silly Kuffar Says:

    And if your Church attendance is anything to go by..there won’t be a lot of people who will view this site.
    So I wont expect any replies.
    Because no-one cares about what this blog has to say.

  5. Jim Says:

    Silly Kuffar,
    I am not religious, but I and many others are followers of this blog because we appreciate the thoughtful and intelligent commentary. The overall level of debate reflects all that is best about this enlightened country and society of which we are so proud.
    By contrast, your posts are an incoherent, bigoted and vulgar rant. If people do not reply to your offensive posts it is because your posts do not deserve a reply.
    You will not be hearing more from me.

  6. Caral Says:

    Well said, Jim.

    We cannot even give silly kuffar, the allowance of ill education or ignorance, as this is not a valid excuse in this day and age.

  7. Silly Kuffar Says:

    So Jim not religeous..what do you come here for ?

    To see how badly Christianity is FAILING British Christians ?

  8. Canon Peter Says:

    Excellent article. Because of your continued exposure of the BNP’s fake Christian claims, I for one will not be voting for them, and will ensure that my friends & parishoners do not also.

  9. Silly Kuffar Says:

    @ Canon Peter.

    Well if your Congregation attendances are anything to go-by we don’t have much to worry about.


  10. Silly Kuffar Says:

    And I’m sure you will want you congregation to become BETTER MUSLIMS.

  11. Silly Kuffar Says:

    Right..if any of you can answer this question I will vote New Labour at the Next General election

    Q – Explain to me in what way are the BNP Fascist ?

  12. Goy Says:

    The church hierarchy has alienated and scattered the indigenous peoples and congregation of the British Isles while opening the door to islam they are a church of hypocrisy.

  13. Sophie, Surrey Says:

    You’ve heard of Google, perhaps, Silly Kuffar? Google BNP. You’re unlikely to be wiser, but you may be better informed.

    For example: “It has been claimed that the BNP has, since its foundation, been fascist. The party’s predecessor, the NF, was overtly fascist, incorporating nationalism, racism, and antisemitism into its core ideology.

    The BNP denies that it is fascist, calling the accusations “utter nonsense”, and an attempt to “prevent freedom of speech”. Griffin has said about the claims that he is a fascist “I am not a fascist—that is a smear that comes from the far left.”

    However, political scientists support the fascist description and say that the BNP has attempted to hide its true nature and to present a more moderate image in order to attract
    popular support. ”


    Or perhaps this quote: “BNP leader Nick Griffin, a life-long Nazi, argued: “The electors of Millwall [backed] what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan ‘Defend Rights for Whites’ with well directed boots and fists. When the crunch comes, power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate”.”


    Just Google. You’ll find loads of stuff to support the assertion that the BNP is a filthy fascist, racist and homophobic organisation. Oh, and did I mention Holocaust denial?

    Only a few weeks ago the BNP beat up a Times journalist having invited him to cover a meeting. What an own goal! Public relations have never been the BNP’s strong suit. How I laughed.

    The BNP are thugs. They try to conceal this by using patriotic imagery when photos of Hitler and the SS would be a more realistic illustration of their values.

  14. Goy Says:

    @Silly Kuffar

    A – because they oppose fascist neoliberals.

    Winston Churchill wrote that ‘ The New Fascism will be Anti-Fascism ‘.

  15. Silly Kuffar Says:


    As with Churchills statement a lot of what is happening now has actually been discussed and reported on years before it actually happend.
    I think Churchill was well informed, just a pity we were never told the Timetable.

    I see no-one can explain to me HOW THE BNP are FASCIST .

  16. Silly Kuffar Says:


    You haven’t even tried..now


  17. Silly Kuffar Says:

    You have googled fascism and failed to answer IN WHAT WAY ARE THE BNP FASCIST ?

    just 2 or 3 examples and not that “some think” or “some say” I MEAN PROOF.

    Silly Kuffar 1 – Silly little girls 0

  18. Silly Kuffar Says:

    Michael Mann is an historical sociologist and Professor of Sociology at UCLA. In his book Fascists (Cambridge University Press, 2004) he provides the following definition:

    “Fascism is the pursuit of a transcendent and cleansing nation-statism through paramilitarism.” (Mann, op. cit., p. 13)

    Definition of terms:

    · Transcendence: Belief that the state can transcend social conflict and blend all social classes into a harmonious whole. Belief in the power of political ideology to transcend human nature and produce a better world.

    · Cleansing (ethnic): Favoring one or more ethnic or racial groups over others, either by granting special privileges or imposing disabilities; deportation of ethnic minorities, or worse.

    · Cleansing (political): Silencing the political opposition so that the transcendent aims of fascism can be realized. Restricting the freedom of speech, outlawing opposition parties, imprisoning political opponents (or worse) and indoctrinating youth in fascist principles.

    · Statism: Promoting a high degree of state intervention in personal, social, or economic matters. Belief that the state can accomplish anything.

    · Nationalism: Belief in the inherent unity of a population with distinct linguistic, physical, or cultural characteristics and its identification with a nation-state. Belief that the nation possesses special attributes that make it superior to other nations in some or all ways.

    · Paramilitarism: “Grass roots”, populist squadrism aimed at coercing opponents and obtaining popular approbation by acting as a supplementary police force.

    2. Robert O. Paxton

    Robert Paxton is an American historian and emeritus professor of history at Columbia University. In his book The Anatomy of Fascism (Alfred A. Knopf, 2004) he develops the following definition:

    “Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a massed-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external explansion.” (Paxton, op. cit., p. 218)

    3. R.J.B. Bosworth

    Bosworth is professor of history at the University of Western Australia and has been a Visiting Fellow at Columbia, Cambridge, Oxford, and Trento Universities. In his book Mussolini’s Italy: Life Under the Fascist Dictatorship, 1915-1945 (Penguin Press, 2006) he reviews the definitions of Mann and Paxton, with some approbation and some criticism. Regarding Paxton he points out, for example, that the Italian Fascist regime, once in power, left the court system largely intact, provided a good measure of due process, never established anything close to a gulag, and accommodated the church – hardly things that indicate it was “without ethical or legal restraints”. Regarding Mann, he disputes the notion that Italian Fascism “killed democracy” by observing (rightly) that pre-Fascist Italy was not a democracy anyway, and questions the importance of ideological “transcendence”. Bosworth avoids a succinct definition of Fascism for reasons he himself summarizes as follows:

    “…it might be argued that the quest for definition of fascism has become absurdly laboured. Why opt for a long list of factors or paragraph of rococo ornateness when Mussolini, on a number of occasions, informed people he regarded as converted to his cause that Fascism was a simple matter? All that was needed was a single party, a dopolavoro [“after work”, a social leisure time organization], and, he did not have to add, a Duce (with a Bocchini to repress dissent) and a will to exclude the foe (somehow defined). To be still more succinct, as Mussolini told Franco in October 1936, what the Spaniard should aim at was a regime that was simultaneously ‘authoritarian’, ‘social’, and ‘popular’. That amalgam, the Duce advised, was the basis of universal fascism.” (Bosworth, op. cit., p. 564.)

    4. Conflation

    a. Elements deemed essential by all authors

    All three authors agree that statism, nationalism , unity, authoritarianism, and vigor are essential elements of fascism.

    b. Elements deemed non-essential by all authors

    All three authors spend some time discussing things commonly thought to characterize fascism but which do not. They note that such things as parades and street violence were common features of mass movements at the time, and not distinctively fascist. They also note that the role of anti-Semitism in the rise of fascist movements was minor. In the Italian case, it played no role at all in the early days, and indeed many Jews were party members. And then of course there was Mussolini’s Jewish mistress Margherita Sarfatti. In Germany, anti-Semitism was intentionally downplayed by the Nazis during their ascendant phase because many voters found it offensive.

    c. Areas of disagreement.

    Bosworth is not wholly satisfied with the definitions offered by Mann and Paxton, as previously noted. Mann differs from Paxton and Bosworth on various points, two notable ones being:

    i. Charismatic leadership. Mann tends to assign this attribute lesser weight because his analysis includes fascist movements (in Romania, Hungary, Austria, Spain, and Greece) where charismatic leadership was not an essential element.

    ii. Violence. Unlike Bosworth and Paxton, Mann is a sociologist and takes a more thoughtful approach in analyzing the use of violence in fascist movements. For Mann, violence is something that states do to maintain order; they do it with military and police forces, prisons, and the gallows. It is the use of paramilitary violence, not violence per se, that Mann finds to be an essential attribute of ascendant fascism. Once fascists have control of the state, they tend to enforce the state’s monopoly on violence and suppress the irregular violence of the squadristi (Black Shirts, Brown Shirts, etc.). Mann has the better of the argument here.

    5. Synthesis and Extension: The Ultimate Definition of Fascism

    After reviewing the works of these and many other authors, together with sundry primary historical and sociological sources, I think the following definition best captures the etiology and ontology of fascism.

    “Fascism is a form of political and social behavior that arises when the middle class, finding its hopes frustrated by economic instability coupled with political polarization and deadlock, abandons traditional ideologies and turns, with the approbation of police and military forces, to a poorly-defined but emotionally appealing soteriology of national unity, immediate and direct resolution of problems, and intolerance for dissent.” (Chuck Anesi, 2008)

    Cause and Effect Diagram for European Fascism

    a. Middle Class. In the United States, the term “middle class” as used here includes the high prole, lower middle, middle, and part of the upper middle classes. Americans generally think themselves one class higher than they actually are. To paraphrase Crane Brinton’s Anatomy of Revolution, the lower classes have their peasant revolts, the upper classes have their palace coups, but the middle classes make revolutions.

    b. Economic Instability. Economic instability played a prominent role in the rise of fascism wherever it was successful, and was more perilous to the middle classes than to the lower classes (who had little to lose) or the upper classes (who were insulated from its effects). Demographic analyses of fascist party membership (Mann, op. cit.) shows quite clearly that members were on the whole younger and better educated than population means – precisely those who would be most likely to have their opportunities blocked by economic instability.

    c. Polarization and Deadlock. In all cases where fascism was successful, its rise was preceded by a period of political polarization and parliamentary deadlock. In Italy, forming a stable parliamentary majority had proved impossible since 1919, and making Mussolini Prime Minister in October 1922 offered a convenient way to break the deadlock. The celebrated “March on Rome” could have been easily resisted by the government (and in fact most fascists on their way to Rome were prevented from reaching it by police forces), but it offered a handy excuse for Victor Emmanuel II to invite Mussolini into the government. In Germany, it had been impossible to form a parliamentary majority from March 1930 until Hitler’s appointment as chancellor; Hindenburg had been ruling with emergency powers article 48 of the German constitution until the appointment of Hitler as chancellor in January 1933 allowed formation of a conservative majority government. Ironically, the failure of leftists to compromise and work with centrists was a major enabler for the rise of fascism in both Italy and Germany.

    d. Abandonment of Traditional Ideologies. To paraphrase Thomas (not Michael) Mann, World War I fired the mine beneath the Magic Mountain of pre-war Europe when the Enlightenment heritage of individual rights, progress, and equality collapsed into unprecedented carnage. The war left the victors exhausted and demoralized, the losers angry and resentful, and everyone wondering what went wrong.

    The victors applied a policy of self-determination to reduce the level of ethnic strife by rationalizing borders and creating homelands for the various “races” (speech and culture groups) of Europe. This scheme failed to reduce tensions for four reasons. (1) regional heterogeneity made it impossible to create ethnically pure states; (2) the desire to weaken the former Central Powers led to violations of the policy — placement of large German populations in the new nations of Czechoslovakia and Poland, and large Hungarian populations in Romania and Czechoslovakia; (3) the policy was at odds with the natural desire of the victors for territorial booty, and failed to reward Italy with any significant territorial gain (the South Tyrol not being significant in the Italian view); and (4) the policy promoted aggressive nationalism.

    The war was also followed by sharp though brief economic recessions and, in some countries, by hyperinflation.

    Given all this, it is not hard to see why many authors have seen World War I as the primary “cause” of fascism. Enlightenment liberalism had failed to prevent a huge blood bath, created a peace that nobody was happy with, and wrecked the economy. New ideas, many thought, were needed.

    e. Approbation of Police and Military Forces. The police and military forces are responsible for execising the state’s monopoly on violence to maintain order and defend the state. They are highly organized and skillful at what they do, and respect competence and efficiency. They will not long respect a government that is incompetent and inefficient.

    Fascists did not “seize power” through any credible threat of violence. Once in office, they proceeded to consolidate and expand their power through technically legal means.

    f. Poorly-defined. Fascist ideology was vague and protean. This is a source of endless frustration to those who expect to find a coherent definition of fascism in the the writings of party “philosophers”. But it reflects nothing more than fascism’s pragmatic approach to attaining its goals and its unwillingness to be bound (like its predecessors) to failed dogmas. Like all popular movements, fascism tried to encapsulate ideology in terse slogans – “Believe, Obey, Fight”, “Strength through joy”, “Work makes you free.”

    g. Emotionally appealing. It is commonly observed that fascism was more a matter of the gut than of the head. Clearly those who joined fascist parties often did so from shrewd self-interest, but the same could be said of those who join any party. It was the emotional appeal of fascism – the notion that through sheer hope and force of will difficult and long-standing problems could easily be resolved – that set it apart. Triumph of the Will. This idea of course was not new and is still popular. The New Age doctrine of “Manifesting” holds that ideas firmly held will become reality. This doctrine appears in many forms – e.g. “The Power of Positive Thinking”, “The Law of Attraction”, “Change You can Believe in”. In its weak form it holds merely that positive thinking is more likely to achieve a result than negative thinking. Generally this form is harmless and often productive. In its strong form, it holds that positive thinking will in fact produce the intended result. In this form it is indistinguishable from magic.

    h. Soteriology of national unity, immediate and direct resolution of problems, and intolerance for dissent.

    i. National unity. This was a fixed core goal of fascism. It held that social conflict could be transcended through service to the nation-state as the embodiment of the will of the people. With all serving the same master, internal conflict would disappear and the people (with certain out-groups excluded of course) would achieve their destiny.

    ii. Immediate and direct resolution of problems. This is often confounded with violence. Practically however it had more to do with cutting through red tape and taking shortcuts. Sometimes this involved squadrist violence, and sometimes it did not. It is important to realize that excessive bureaucratization and ineffective justice systems played a role in the rise of fascism. An example will be helpful.

    (a) Shopkeeper sells wine to children. Fascist thugs beat up shopkeeper.

    (b) Shopkeeper sells wine to children. He has bribed the police and nothing happens.

    (c) Shopkeeper sells wine to children. He has bribed the judge and his case is dismissed.

    (d) Shopkeeper sells wine to children. The police arrest him, and he is promptly fined and imprisoned.

    (e) Shopkeeper sells wine to children. He is cited and the case drags on for a year, ultimately disposed of with a plea to a lesser charge or a deferred prosecution agreement.

    A person interested in doing substantial justice with proper safeguards for individual rights would choose scenario (d) as the most desirable. But if scenario (d) is not working, is scenario (a) worse than the remaining choices? At least with scenario (a) substantial justice is done. And these were the kinds of choices that fascists had to make. Direct action did achieve immediate results and contributed greatly to the popularity of fascism in its ascendant stages.

    iii. Intolerance for dissent. It would be trivial to observe that since the fascist model required individuals to serve the nation-state as the embodiment of the popular will, and subordinate their interests to it, dissent would be unthinkable for any true believer. A stronger reason for suppressing dissent can be found in the emotional characteristics of fascism. Accepting that ideas firmly held become reality, a dissenter imperiled the collective spell, and dissent was seen as a species of malefic witchcraft.

    B. Amateur Definitions of Fascism

    Brief reference must be made to definitions of fascism offered in popular works intended for the mass market. These “definitions” are typically lists of attributes deemed to be essential characteristics of fascism. Invariably these lists contain attributes that are often found in non-fascist states, and the authors fail to distinguish fascism from simple authoritarianism, if indeed they even understand that distinction. Examples of authors offering these trivial analyses include Naomi Wolf, Lawrence Britt, Umberto Eco, and others. (I very much like Umberto Eco’s fiction but he is definitely not an analytical thinker.)

    II. Avoiding Fascism

    A. Maintain Order

    Ensure that the people are secure in possession of their lives, liberty, and property. Locke had this one right. And as Jefferson observed, a government that does not ensure these things should be overthrown. Until a government can ensure a high degree of public order it has no business doing anything else. Pursuit of other objectives, however worthy, while public order is lacking will bring the government into contempt and require the people to seek security from vigilante and squadrist organizations. At that point the government is seen as a useless hindrance and fascism is imminent.

    The major impediment to maintaining public order in the United States at this time (2008) is the judiciary, which has introduced so much procedural due process that bringing simple cases to trial can take months or years. A re-assessment of these archaic and inefficient procedures would be beneficial, and needs to be undertaken before a crisis exposes their weakness.

    B. Compromise

    Gandhi said that in his law practice he “strained every nerve to bring about a compromise,” and that “The true function of a lawyer was to unite parties riven asunder.” (Mohandas Gandhi, The Story of My Experiments with Truth, ch. 14). Gandhi saw compromise as a spiritual necessity.

    The role of maximalism in the rise of fascism has been noted previously. The failure of left, right, and center to compromise and form coalitions weakened the governments of Italy, Germany, Austria, and other countries, promoting the rise of fascism.

    Compromise requires intellectual honesty, a faculty often lacking on the right and left. It is necessary for the wise to broker compromises and “strain every nerve” to achieve them.

    C. Remember that Law is Violence, and Use it Sparingly

    Amateur commentators on fascism (Wolf, Britt, Eco et al.) fail to see that fascists did most of their work using the state’s monopoly on “legitimate” violence with nearly universal popular approbation. This included passing laws that controlled the most trivial aspects of human behavior, backed up by the traditional apparatus of police, courts, and prisons. In many cases considerable procedural due process existed, most notably in Italy, where the judicial machinery was largely untouched. But of course procedural due process used to enforce an unjust law does not yield justice.

    The point here is this: if you think you are better than a fascist because you are passing laws to control people’s behavior in trivial and oppressive ways, instead of beating people up, well, you are wrong. The fascists did exactly the same thing. In fact, you are worse than a fascist, because you are too cowardly to do the dirty work yourself, and want to leave it to the police and the courts.

    So unless you would be willing personally to use physical violence to enforce a law, knowing that you might be severely injured or killed while doing so, you have no business making such a law, and will only bring contempt upon yourself and the legislature if you do so. This of course is one reason the U.S. House and Senate are held in such low esteem – they are seen, with some accuracy, as a collection of ignorant, cowardly windbags hiding behind the state’s monopoly on violence. (This may seem harsh, but no reasonable person viewing the Congress of the United States in 2009 could possibly disagree with it.)

    III. Fascist FAQ

    A. Scope
    This section addresses various questions received in emails, usually from readers who have read amateur definitions of fascism.

    B. Didn’t Mussolini say Fascism was “rule by corporations”?

    Yes, but he did not mean BUSINESS corporations, and he meant rule by means of corporations.

    One means to achieving the fascist goal of transcendent unity was corporatism. In Italian Fascism, this involved a vertical reorganization of society into syndicates or “corporations” that grouped people by their field of endeavor, rejecting horizontal distinctions of management and labor. The initial organization, following the Rocco Law of 1926, “established syndicates of industry, agriculture, commerce, maritime and air transport, land and inland waterway transit and banking, with intellectuals and artisans being grouped in a seventh syndicate of their own.” (Bosworth, op.cit., 226)

    Thus, when Mussolini referred to a “corporate state”, he meant organizing management and labor into syndicates under the thumb of the Duce. This was rule by means of corporations — an expedient but certainly not a defining characteristic of fascism.

    No more need be said of this. Wikipedia has a decent concise article on Corporatism that will clarify proper usage of the term.

    This confusion is not new. I remember when I was an undergraduate many years ago a student used the term “corporate state” in class, referring to some vague idea of a state in which business corporations run the show, and the professor, being an Oxford man, thought he was talking about Fascist corporatism. The confusion was soon resolved. But we are likely to see more of this now that the American education system has given up teaching history, philosophy, mathematics and so forth in favor of diversity studies and post-modernist literary criticism.

    C. Can fascism be defined as radical anti-communism?

    I guess, if you want to define Bolshevism as “radical anti-capitalism”. Seem like pretty impoverished definitions to me.

    D. Why is your style irregular in its capitalization of “fascism”?
    When used in reference to Italian Fascism the word is a proper noun. Otherwise it is not.

    Copyright (C) 2008, 2009 Chuck Anesi all rights reserved
    Return to Chuck Anesi’s home page


  19. Silly Kuffar Says:

    More New Labour Fascism than BNP .

    “Silencing the political opposition so that the transcendent aims of fascism can be realized. Restricting the freedom of speech, outlawing opposition parties, imprisoning political opponents (or worse) and indoctrinating youth in fascist principles.”

  20. Silly Kuffar Says:


  21. Silly Kuffar Says:

    I think you lot need an EDUCATION.



    And start learning.

  22. rev pastor james thompson Says:

    I am not a member of the BNP. Neither would I ever want to be a member of Labour, Lib Dem or Tory Parties, as each of the three latter denied us a referendum on whether we agreed or not to hand our nation over to an evolving tyrranical ‘super!’ state in Brussels.

    Indeed, the three major parties – and especially new labour – are very largely run by leaders opposed to basic Christian teaching as found in our New Testaments. The Llib dems lean backwards to support to the hilt: homos. lesies, bisexuals and transevestites! Yes. and meanwhile, the Tories lean backwards to bring back sick and barbaric medieval blood ‘sports’.

    Such major parties – united in dissolving both our british heritage and faith – are the parties that the leaders of British Anglicanism and Methodism would have us voting for! Yes, while they tell us that on no account must we ever vote BNP! Infact, if I joined it as a cleric then they would deny me the right to practice openly as a priest!

    Well, amongst past parishes I’ve pastored, have been those in: Bradford, Huddersfield, Barnsley, Dewsbury and Doncaster! Indeed, as a new octogenarian, I look back with sadness and can fully understand why so many really wonderful Christian folk in those far off days have since become so sympathetic to much that Nick Griffin and his party stand for.

    Oh’ I fully agree that the BNP stand for some factors unpalatable. But what about the major parties that are selling us out to Europe: hook, line and sinker? What about their blatant lying, their appalling greed and recently revealed: utterly corrupt practices? Are such a motley breed of buffoons (my apologies to the animal!) the kind of folk that the leaders of Anglicanism expect us to vote in to power? Well, God forbid!

    I think I’ve said enough to show how I feel towards an ecclesiastical elite that Jesus would have referred to as whitened sepulchres. Yes, plus a whole lot more.

  23. Webmaster Says:

    @Silly Kuffer, I don’t like censoring here, but I can’t abide “ad Hom” insults. If you have a constructive criticism, then fine. Otherwise, try to hold back a little, as you defeat your own cause.

  24. Silly Kuffar Says:

    It’s hard to Turn the other cheek, as these wishy washy Fascist Christians would have us do, when your being stabbed in the back by your Government.


  25. Silly Kuffar Says:

    insults ?
    which ones..like calling you all fascists,,youu call me a fascist because i’m a BNP supporter, but thats ok ?

  26. Silly Kuffar Says:

    Sorry Webmaster, I get angry when people throw the RACIST NAZI FASCIST card at me.
    What else am I to do ?

  27. rev pastor james thompson Says:

    PS: Those politicians who point their finger at the BNP need to realise that in doing so, three of their fingers on the same hand are pointing back at them. I’ll say no more.

  28. Silly Kuffar Says:

    @rev pastor james thompson

    Thank you.
    You have more authority on Ecclesiastical stuff than me, I’m glad to see that you recognise what is really going on politically and who the real haters are.
    The Lib/Lab/Con have done great job of destroying this country and with full consent, aided and abetted by the Christian Churches.
    And as a Christian I see our Religious leaders going to bat for the “Other Side”.
    How many Christians are there in Islamic Countrys ?
    How many Churches in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan etc ?


  29. Goy Says:

    Jesus did not teach that evil should be embraced and facilitated, is the theopolitics of the enrichers not evil?

    Would it not be heresy for a christian to turn the other cheek and sacrifice themselves without resorting to selfdefence can christians not defend the faith with the sword?

  30. rev pastor james thompson Says:

    Thankyou Silly Kuffar for your words of appreciation! Thankyou Webmaster for the difficult task of trying to be fair to all sides and in return being possibly pilloriied by each! Thank God that as Christians we can agree to differ; learn never to carry bitterness in to our sleep; but to truly forgive and then to sleep the sleep of the just.

  31. Webmaster Says:

    Thank you rev pastor james thompson, I really appreciate your comment.

  32. A Christian who will be voting BNP Says:

    A lovely sandstone built neo gothic Church in my town as recently been turned into mosque. Around the arched entrance is a string course which had two stops in the form of beautifully carved Angels.
    These carvings have now been smashed off by the islamic colonisers
    who now occupy this piece of my heritage.

    So much for respecting other cultures!

  33. Sophie, Surrey Says:

    Let’s not waste another moment on the repellent BNP and its cowardly apologists. A far more elevating focus for our attention is the moving story of Girmail Singh, the Sikh shopkeeper murdered in a village outside Huddersfield.

    “Billy Pickup, the landlord of the Shepherds Arms, visited Mr Singh’s widow a few days ago and hopes to set up a reward fund to help to catch her husband’s killers. “I had a cry and she had a cry. He was the nicest bloke you could wish to meet. I had my arms around his two sons. He’d brought them up right as well. He was my friend and he was certainly a better friend to this community than most whites.”


  34. webmaster Says:

    @Sophie: Desperately sad.

  35. Silly Kuffar Says:

    @Sophie, Surrey
    Are we a bit of a FASCIST NAZI ?

    You failed to explain to me or give 2/3 examples of How and in What way are the BNP fascist ?

    Now you know you can’t call the BNP FASCISTS so you decided to IGNORE the EVIDENCE and “MOVE ON”

    Typical of Fascists in Britain today.
    You should be ashamed of your ANTI-CHRISTIAN

    Now..tell me again…IN WHAT WAY ARE THE BNP FASCIST ?

  36. Silly Kuffar Says:

    @Sophie, Surrey
    “Let’s not waste another moment on the repellent BNP and its cowardly apologists.”

    I think you mean to say..I cannot explain or tell you in what way the BNP are FASCISTS

    And this whole article is about the BNP.


  37. Silly Kuffar Says:

    “Let’s not waste another moment on the repellent BNP and its cowardly apologists. A far more elevating focus for our attention is the moving story of Girmail Singh, the Sikh shopkeeper murdered in a village outside Huddersfield.

    “Billy Pickup, the landlord of the Shepherds Arms, visited Mr Singh’s widow a few days ago and hopes to set up a reward fund to help to catch her husband’s killers. “I had a cry and she had a cry. He was the nicest bloke you could wish to meet. I had my arms around his two sons. He’d brought them up right as well. He was my friend and he was certainly a better friend to this community than most whites.” ”

    It wasn’t the BNP that killed him..more likely New Labour supporters..as with Dr David Kelly we know this Government have MURDERED Dr Kelly.

    How about KRISS DONALD ?

    Let’s not waste another moment telling lies about the BNP.

  38. Caral Says:

    @Silly Kuffar

    I don’t like ad hom arguments.

    However, SK you speak of anti christian attitudes, but you personally exude an attitude of hostility. Rather than debate in a congenial manner.

    Do you believe that you are promoting your party in the best possible light? or have you considered that you could possibly be alienating people further?

    Just a thought.

  39. Silly Kuffar Says:


    How do you NOT see the HYPOCRISY ?

  40. Sophie, Surrey Says:

    I’m happy to converse online with a variety of people whom I wouldn’t necessarily want to meet in RL. There are a few who just make me want to wash my hands.

    However I can only applaud Silly Kuffar for presenting his thoughts in a way that so amply demonstrates their quality. :-)

  41. Silly Kuffar Says:

    To all eChurch readers who are unfamiliar with the BNP and it’s Policy’s and before condeming us, due to the outrages lies and deciet perpetuated thourgh articles like, please check out BNP Policy’s, and could you then tell me what Policy’s you disagree with an why.

    That’s reasonable debate.
    You can’t blame me for retaliating to previous provocations.
    And that’s usually due to people not undestanding the BNP or telling outright lies.
    In many newspapers we see stories about the “Odious BNP” etc, but the BNP never get the “Right to reply”.

    And please be informed before you start throwing FASCIST NAZI RACISTS at BNP members.
    Do you not understand how derogatory these terms are.
    If we BNP, Members and Supporters were to write articles about Muslims, Jews, Homosexuals in a similar way to this article etc what do you think would happen ?
    I bet you all believe that Nick Griffin has a criminal conviction for inciting racial hatred…guess what…NICK GRIFFIN HAS NO CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS for Incitement to Racial Hatred.
    Please get informed.


    rev pastor james thompson sees the reality of what is happening in this country.
    The BNP do NOT do VIOLENCE, STREET MARCHES, Demonstrations etc unlike the Lib/Lab/Con Supported and financed UAF.
    All we have tried to do is speak the TRUTH and we have been pilloried by the Lib/Lab/Con, called Fascist, Racist, Nazi scum etc.
    How Christian is that ?

    Pro-Mohamed = Anti-Christ

  42. Silly Kuffar Says:


    See..as you have amply shown your still a bigot.

    Now Sophie..in what way are the BNP Fascist ?
    You seem to throw the name around a bit, surely you know what a Fascist is?

  43. Silly Kuffar Says:

    Should we have real discussion on the BNP, it’s Policies etc ?
    I will be polite and reasonable at all times on the condition that the same is accorded to me.

  44. Silly Kuffar Says:

    Shall I take that as a no ?

  45. Caral Says:

    Silly Kuffar,

    This is a blog, so communication is asynchronous. :o )

    SK, personally I don’t feel the need or have the want to discuss the BNP.

    I having read extensively and followed their political rise for a number of years. I have discussed the issues with the BNP’s polite, articulate Rev West, and of course not discounting, the personal dealings my family had a number of years back, with their heavies the C17′s.

    I can assure you I will not change my view.

  46. Jim Says:

    This is painful. If no-one else will directy Silly Kuffar’s risible but oft repeated question about the BNP and fascism, then let me do it and put us all out of our misery so we can move on to something more interesting.

    OK. First, let’s be clear: the BNP is fascist with a small “f”. The use of the capital “F” is used to refer to the Italian Fascist Party of the 1930’s

    Why is the BNP a fascist party? Well, the long disjointed text quoted by Silly Kuffar is arguably inaccurate in many respects, and it’s clear that the authors quoted cannot even agree.
    But let’s take what the three authors can at least agree on as a baseline:
    All three agree that statism, nationalism, unity, authoritarianism, and vigour are essential elements of fascism. How does the BNP match up against these criteria?

    It is clear even from the public version of their manifesto that the BNP seek to concentrate economic and political power in the State. For example, re-nationalization of utilities, centralization of education funding, imposition of import taxes across the board, and many others.

    To quote directly from the BNP manifesto: “Only Nationalism can deliver a successful economy and a prosperous people.” Need I say more?

    At the core of the BNP’s stated policies is the forcible repatriation of anybody deemed (for a variety of reasons) not to be sufficiently British. Blame for many of the apparent ills that the BNP claim beset the country is put both directly and indirectly on immigrants. There are frequent references to returning to “traditional British values”, and ditching multiculturalism. They state that benefits and housing will only be made available to British Citizens.

    The BNP want to introduce harsher prison conditions, and the reintroduction of a mandatory death penalty for a range of crimes. They want all school leavers to do compulsory national service or community service. They want to increase the size of the Armed Forces. They want to reduce locallly raised funding by moving collection of, and decisions on, taxation from local councils to central government.

    Vigour: I’m sure the BNP themselves would not say they lack this.

    An alternative, dictionary definition of fascism is: “any doctrine, system or practice, regarded as authoritarian, militaristic, or extremely right wing.” Does this definition fit the BNP? I think the facts above, taken from BNP sources, indicate that the answer is clearly yes.

    So, Silly Kuffar, these are some answers to your questions – I could produce many more. It will be instructive to see how you react. If you go off on another rant, then we’ll know you really don’t care about rational debate, and we need not waste our time any more with you. And please understand that it’s not relevant to your question whether what the BNP stands for is a good thing or a bad thing. I am just stating facts, taken from BNP documents, in order to answer your question.

  47. Silly Kuffar Says:

    who are Combat 17 ?
    Methinks unchristian truths are being told.
    whover combat whatever is it has NO RELATION to the BNP.
    Also I take it from you that you are NOT an INDIGENOUS BRIT ?
    Therefore you views are INVALID, just like my views on how africa should be run are invalid.

    So be a TRUE CHRISTIAN anddon’t tell lies, it’s a DEADLY SIN, but of course you know that being a CHRISTIAN.

  48. Silly Kuffar Says:


    You fell at the first hurdle.
    0/10 for effort

  49. Caral Says:

    Silly Kuffar said…

    who are Combat 17 ?
    Methinks unchristian truths are being told.
    whover combat whatever is it has NO RELATION to the BNP.
    Also I take it from you that you are NOT an INDIGENOUS BRIT ? Therefore you views are INVALID.

    So you show your colours, a facist and a racist. Just like your party.

    Thank you for a timely reminder.

  50. Jim Says:

    I gave you another chance Silly Kuffar. You had given me every reason to doubt your sincerity, and yet I gave you the benefit of the doubt and took the time to answer your question.
    You clearly have zero interest in constructive argument. Instead you resort to pathetic and irrelevant allegations and taunts.
    Yet you still appear to think you have the right to tell others how to be Christian!
    You need help my friend. Seriously.

  51. Goy Says:

    To give a true defintinon of the word fascist you would have to go deep into Italian history and the Italian psychology, the attachment of the word fascist outside those dimensions is almost meaningless and to deploy an opposing tactic based on political meaninglessness and slander will only accelerate the descent into the theo-political nightmare.

Switch to our mobile site