There has been quite a lot of hand wringing from the mainstream political parties over the past couple of days about the 'success' of the BNP in the Euro elections. I put the word 'success' in quotes because the one thing that has been lost is some perspective.
The BNP now have two MEPs from 72 British MEPs (2.7%) in a Parliament of just over 730 MEPs (0.2%). They join the other 70 or so loons, 9/11 truthers, etc that don't agree with each other and are in no formal group in the European Parliament (9.7% of the total Parliament).
To put it as bluntly as I can. Britain has nothing to feel bad about, or to be ashamed of, in sending a couple of moonbats funded by us to sit with a bunch of other moonbats funded by us that will exercise bugger all power or influence on an EU whose agenda is diametrically opposed to theirs. The world is no falling in, no matter what politicians of sound mind (and by that I mean sane mind) say.
Saying that though, whilst the politicians stand up and try to find some explanation for why 943,598 people out of a potential 45 million chose to vote for them, most of them are getting it wrong. As expected we've had the claim, by the new Health Secretary Andy Burnham in fact, that it was the "ultimate protest vote". As mentioned the other day there is a big problem with that analysis.
It's certainly true that there are some who voted BNP because they felt the other parties, especially Labour, had let them down. This was shown in the YouGov poll for Channel 4. However, what that poll also showed was something that has been brewing for sometime and in fact, arguably at least, caused the inevitability of the BNP in securing votes.
Specifically, the poll showed that over 70% of BNP voters believed that being white meant that you were discriminated against. Now, whether one accepts that is the case or not, it is the perception of what is the case that matters, and that perception is surely inevitable when you look at the growth of "identity politics" coupled with a guilt-ridden Hegelian worldview of the Western white man as an oppressor with reparation of some sort to pay?
Just take a look at the cultural climate in which we live today. There are political pressure groups based upon all manner of differing identities, whether its based on sexuality, race, ethnicity or gender. All of them start from a presumption that they represent a distinct identity group that is discriminated against, and in most cases have an historical reference point for that presumption.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that they don't have a right to exist or make that case. Rather what I am saying is, is it any wonder that an identity group in the form of the BNP would also form to represent what it sees as the discrimination of the white man at the hands of, ironically, other groups who's starting base is one of identity seeking equality?
Let's just take one such group as an example. The Afro-Caribbean community has its own newspaper, The Voice, to give that community a voice where it argues non-exists in the mainstream. There is nothing wrong with that, but just imagine if there was an equivalent newspaper for white Britons arguing along similar lines. There would be uproar. Yet if you're going to have genuine equality then it should stand to reason such a newspaper ought to exist, irrespective of whether one likes its views or not.
This is the inevitable paradox of the politics of identity, and its also why the BNP are vitally important in the discourse and philosophical questions that the Western world has to ask itself in general. Identity politics has at its core a desire for equality, and yet, in the process of seeking that equality, every single group engages in some form of unequal treatment of its non-members.
Whether it comes in the form of the extreme views that argue for mass repatriation of all non-whites from a particular nation; or simply takes a view that calls for, affirmative action, also known as "positive" discrimination, but which remains discrimination nonetheless towards those that are not in the given group.
Is it any surprise therefore that those who are on the 'negative' side of positive discrimination should seek to mobilise against it? Of course, in the case of the BNP, it is equally ironic that they say they want to fight this so-called "political correctness" (the catch all phrase for issues arising from identity politics) whilst at the same time being part of the very same politics of identity and desiring political correctness to be in their favour instead.
As I said at the beginning, we need to keep the 'success' of the BNP in perspective. Likewise we need to realise that the 'success' is the inevitable consequence of the path that we've taken in political thought over the past few decades. If people really want to take the BNP's platform away from them they will need to start taking other platforms away too.
I recall a conversation I once had with a gay colleague and personal friend of mine. He said the "fight" was about getting people to treat gay people like human beings and just accept that some people of the same gender fancy each other. It was not about making gay people a special interest group that needed special treatment. It was about 'not being in the stocks or on a dais'. He was right.
Basically, I guess what I'm trying to say is that as long as special interest and special treatment (perceived or otherwise) remains the orthodox world view, then the BNP will continue to exist and 'succeed'. Either accept it as the inevitable consequence of the postmodern politics of identity, or get off that path and head down the meritocratic one instead.