DC Diggs

The BNP

2008-11-22T03:36:00.000-08:00

I will write again. I have been triggered by recent activity against the BNP and I feel it is time to get my opinion on this site. Mainly because sooner or later, I will be stopped from talking altogether. As everybody can see, I have written an essay below describing how the BNP are absolutely a fascist party. Let me start by saying that my opinion has not changed in the slightest. They are and we must stop them.

However, the techniques used by this government and indeed this country are little less than Stalinist. I realise that they are not that much of an opposition party, but they are still in opposition to the government. Members are now prevented from getting a job. Teachers Unions are stopping them from becoming teachers. Facebook is being asked to wipeaway all information to do with the BNP. Hitler against the Jews. I hate to agree with BNP members, but as it states below, it is very difficult to identify fascist characteristics in the BNP, so now they are essentially piling pressure and hatred from the rest of the country on white middle income and working class Englishmen. Stopping them from getting a job. With that kind of treatment, what do you think this group will start to do but join the BNP? The treatment by the government is ridiculous. 'Positive racism' - there is no such thing, and if anyone believes there is then they are as racisr as the BNP. I then wrote on the Sky News and BBC website but Sky won't let me say Stalinist and the BBC stopped debate altogether. What's next 42 day detention? ID cards? Positive racism? oh - already been tried ah well then - Welcome to Stalinist Britain!

The 40 Year Old Virgin

2008-08-03T03:18:00.000-07:00

I am forced to ask what the genre of this film is. Is it American Pie silly or It's a wonderful life? Meaning, does an experience change a person with a fault in their nature or a point of view that should change for during the film that endeavors also to change ours? Well it certainly is silly as many of the characters simply are silly and could very well have featured in American Pie and we would be happy with their involvement. And it certainly is trying to create a situation to change someone's crisis. It seems pretty obvious then that The 40 year old virgin is about a virgin who is 40 who requires his friends around him to change that for the better. Steve Carrell is Andy Sitzer. A man who finds himself working in an electrical goods store and a virgin at the age of 40. He is very much in the background of this store and is clearly unsuccessful. It then becomes the challenge of his colleagues to push him out of this situation and slowly it works out this way and then a woman called Trish comes along to end it in the best way possible. As you can tell, this film was always going to be silly and it should be expected to be as it is very silly. The humour is very much for an American Pie audience, and the ridiculous amount of swearing only underlines this issue. However the biggest problem with this film is not that there is too much swearing. Nor is it the silly humour. But instead, it is the fact that I seriously do not believe that Steve Carrel, a handsome man who is mature, clever and owns his own home, would ever in real life be a virgin by force. And of course, for him to be changed it needs to be by force, but I watched this film thinking he must have chosen this, not been forced into it. One character said that she would have sex with him in seconds. The film then puts it down to accidents but accidents are not the reason why someone would be a virgin. So you see you find yourself thinking is this just silly or is it trying to say something about being a virgin at 40. That's obviously up to the viewer. Still it will make you laugh and you should enjoy this film. Apatow is a funny man and is backed up by Carrell who is always funny. Worth seeing but tell me what the genre is. Is it American Pie stupid, or is it an It's a Wonderful life thoughtful? I can assure you that it is a great and thoughtful American Pie-like film. Alternatively, if it is meant to be It's a Wonderful Life, it isn't great and sufferd from plot holes that are indeed very noticeable.
***1/2 - Good funny film for an evening in.

The Good German

2008-07-28T11:02:00.000-07:00

Well I must say I am biased in this case. I just don't consider George Clooney to be a good actor. I am sorry but when he decided to do an 'oscar grabber,' I thought, there might be a chance for him. Especially being set in Germany after the war. With a decent cast of Toby Maguire and good old Cate Blanchett, I thought that this might be different. However this flick is attempting something that The Pianist, Downfall and Schindler's list all attempted, and following them needed something special. Unfortunately the wooden acting will leave you not taking George seriously and the film has an over complicated plot meaning that this black and white is not black and white. It is not straight forward but a pondering through a dull and tedious script made worse by Pinocchio playing the lead. Cate does well and of course, most expecting me to say that she out did everybody especially the usually drab Maguire, are waiting in vain. Maguire is fantastic and worth the money you paid to see the whole film. And then he dies in the first 20 minutes leaving Cate as a side for Clooney's awful German, awfull acted, painfully boring script. I guess oscars don't just come to anyone doing the war. **

The Not Show

2008-07-12T22:11:00.000-07:00

I am a big fan of the Now Show but recently I have been much disappointed. Mitch Benn is usually funny but I do believe he is quickly running out of material and it really does show that all he does is seemingly pick a stupid fact and elaborate on it in an often semi-humorous way. The Now Show for the 4th July included two of his songs. The first was a short, perhaps even less than a minute simple tune describing Nelson Mandela as if he were a terrorist. The idea was that he was only just taken off the terrorism list by the US and therefore this seemed funny. But I am skeptical and I must admit I didn't laugh. Firstly, because it isn't that funny. Ha ha he is saying that the Americans think he is an evil terrorist. That's not really funny because it would go against his usual opinion of Americans to say that the Americans had even heard of him. Also to think that the British took this long to take Mugabe off the knighthood list is significantly more stupid. This really marks my recently poor opinion of him too. Mitch Benn is quite clever. He has a system. Take simple song tune and change words to fit recent news story. But every story on the news does not come out at America being crap. Nor does it come out as Britain being crap. I enjoy Have I got news for you more at the moment because they do not necessarily have a politics that is set. They insult everyone. Here though it is the same old annoying politics and they will even walk past something that is quite obviously something to insult and because they like it they will ignore it. It usually is ignorable but recently, it has become unbearable. Constant America bashing is not clever and it's not funny anymore either. I agree that they should, but Britain deserves significant attacks. They then would walk past the fact that the British government has allowed companies to be 'positively racist'. Without mentioning the fact that it is obscene, disgusting and anyone who believes in it should be shot in my view. John Holmes is usually quite funny but last week he went past useful jokes like that and got in the Zimbabwe jokes. Wow! Coz that's funny... Maybe not. I think it is a shame but maybe there are reasons why Have I got news for you is only on every now and again. Perhaps it would gt boring and perhaps the Now Show has as well. Maybe the Now Show has simply ran out of material. I would forgive Mitch Benn for that. After all, he obviously isn't that great of a comedian. Once again I can accept this but the annoying ideas they have do get up my nose. America isn't that bad and Britain certainly is. Why do they feel that it is ok to publicly allow racism? Why? It seems ridiculous to me. I just hope the Now show improves for next week. We shall see.

Make Dan a Dr Who Fan

2008-06-29T18:03:00.000-07:00

Hi all,

As posted on AM's blog, I am challenging you all to make Dan a Dr. Who fan. Please post me an episode and a means of watching it that won't cost 70 pounds!

Dan

Forgetting Sarah Marshall Review SPOILER ALERT!

2008-05-18T06:21:00.000-07:00

Starring Jason Segel, Kristen Bell, Mila Kunis and Russel Brand.
Sarah Marshall (Kristen Bell) is a Hollywood actress currently fulfilling her role in Crime Scene, which is a spoof version of CSI: Miami, with the catchphrases to boot. We join Sarah after she just broke up with five year long boyfriend, Peter Bretter (Jason Segel), the man behind the music of her hit TV show. Peter finds out that she has been dating rockstar, Aldous Snow (Russel Brand) and bumps into them in Hawaii where he seeks to get over the long-term relationship. There he meets the gorgeous Rachel (Mila Kunis) in whom, he becomes infatuated in what terms out for a hilarious situational comedy. That's kind of what happens when you deliberately go where your ex-girlfriend told you throughout your relationship where she wants to go as her perfect romantic location - but what do I know.
After 10 minutes, I was forced to face up to the fact that this film was simply not going to cater for me. Faced with Segel's 'little dude' that early in the film was proof enough that this was a date movie that was for one gender only, and I am a straight, 20 year old male. But it would be easy for me to say that this is a bad film and that everyone really shouldn't watch it because that kind of goes without saying. It is a typical romantic comedy storyline that really has been seen a million times before. We have the cute confused blond star who is longing for more, the guy who won't commit or look to do more with his life, the girl who is scarred by a terrible past life, who we all know he should go out with. It has the typical complication and resolution at the end all for a happily ever after. I admit that this film is instantaneously 'Brand'ed as vulgar simply for a certain character involved, plus the Christian couple on their honey moon is really quite unoriginal. I may be seen as biased for complaining about this but really, the frigid Christian is not funny. There were also problems with the storyline. One cannot help but think that there was no need for Peter to get back with Sarah once with Rachel, all to discover that he is not supposed to be with her, all done for the fulfillment of typical Hollywood storyline. It wasn't needed, especially as a conflict of him leaving the Hotel and perhaps never seeing her again, may have been resolution enough. Certainly as he was made out to be extremely intelligent, sensitive and angry with Sarah for leaving her. This was a point that was expanded upon for at least half of the film. One would assume that the writer would remember that. One also has to question that if this film's target audience is women, why was it so cringe-worthy? How many women like The Office? Not that many and many would say that it was for this reason that they don't. Cringe-worthy humour is a very male-orientated humour and I am not sure whether this was wise.
Nevertheless, the film was quite funny and the acting was quite good. Kristen Bell may have been helped by the fact that she was playing herself in that we should all recognize her for her role as Elle on Heroes, and apparently is finding it very difficult to break into film. Russel Brand had his moments and some of the side characters were quite likeable. Some really weren't, but some were quite good and proved useful in building Peter's character. The spoofing of CSI: Miami was quite funny and was something I particularly enjoyed. Especially the use of Peter's music to similar effect. Rachel was quite an interesting character, although the use of Hawaii as a romantic destination is starting to become more and more popular as comedy. This worked well for 50 First Dates but I am unsure how long this will last as it is slowly getting old now. Although this is true it is a very funny film that does have some classic moments such as a brilliant scene at dinner, which is a must see for anyone into situational comedy.
*** - One for the ladies I think but worth watching and Brand isn't that annoying which is always a plus. What 50 First Dates if you liked this!

24

2008-05-17T01:04:00.000-07:00

When I was told that 24 would not be coming this January, I was angry! Everything looked in a mess and with the quality of the last season, things did not look good. But now I have seen the clip for season 7 and well - I AM READY! Not only this, but 24 will include a preview this time that will be a 2-hour TV Movie! Jack Bauer in a film followed by another 24 hours of blood spilling, torture filled fun for starters, and a main course of neck chomping, leg breaking, knee cap shooting and so much more!
http://videos.24fans.net/uk_trailer/

Short and yet oh so Sweet!

2008-05-13T07:52:00.000-07:00

Gang - check this out - Its a lovely version of Mr. Simms online! A must for all you chocoholics and sweetaholics! I am not an advertisement space but boy does this make me want to spend 100 quid right now!

http://www.handycandy.co.uk/

Scrubs Season 7 Review SPOILER ALERT!

2008-05-12T09:21:00.000-07:00

Where to start? Scrubs season 7 is a continuation of the trend for scrubs to move from a comedy to a drama with a running storyline. Something that it never used to do. I have heard varied opinion on its change but it seems to have made the leap with many left unhappy. Mostly because scrubs was a show that would always be resistant to such a change. With mostly two dimensional and poorly constructed characters, many would argue that Scrubs was mostly geared to be a comedy, and not a drama, or anything that really resembled real life. All of the scrubs characters could fit into two categories. The first being strong characters who have pulled through tough times. Whilst leaving them more pessimistic, they prove worthy antagonists for the main characters who make up the second category. Most of whom are more weak, and for whom, confidence is in short supply. Don't get me wrong, Scrubs has been very successful and this has produced a good comedy, but a character list like this means that it would be difficult to provide a good drama. Anyway, if you wanted to watch a drama set in a hospital, certainly you would watch E.R. or Grey's Anatomy. Scrubs certainly isn't designed for it, and its Ross and Rachel-esque story and its other less recognizable, but more amusing characters certainly don't fit the bill either. This means that any serious points raised by Scrubs are hard to follow and certainly, difficult to take seriously. Plus any of the advice provided certainly doesn't seem applicable in day-to-day life. Who would use anything J.D says in their relationship? If they did, then it is destined to fail - especially as that is the point made in the final episode. Scrubs season 7 is made worse by the fact that after weeks of poor story, the season is ended (and indeed the series is ended) with a horrific finale. Although a good episode, as a finale, it is much less the case. Having decided after the sixth season to continue, and reconcile the story, the writer's decided against even bothering to end the season with answers and left an inconclusive finish. Also, whilst making no sense with the appearance of Bob Kelso, after his removal two episodes previous, it is not surprising that their website was bombarded with angry posts about the episode. NBC attempted to remove many of these comments, but even they couldn't remove all of them. A truly disappointing end to a great comedy.
** - Only a true Scrubs fan will appreciate this season.

I refuse to comment on my blog before anyone else does. I am not that sad, but a bit of news that does change this. Firstly, the final episode of the season was written for before the others, making this episode much more forgivable. In fact it is one of the better ones. What is interesting is that, Scrubs Season 7 is no longer the final season but season 8 has started to go into production. Like 6 was meant to be, 7 was meant to be the finale, but no longer as ABC is backing Scrubs Season 8 which hopefully will be complete and a better season. Whatever happens I hope the season is better than this one. Just for an end to their story I think I will watch it. For link to this news and to find the following brilliant paragraph below, please follow the link below.

'Also, that episode was actually a good and funny one, unlike this one. So in the end Scrubs ends its last season on NBC pretty much perfectly : it’s not a good ending, NBC messed things up just to screw fans because they’re morons, which is a good illustration of how they treated us and the show, refusing to let it end its finale season. Surely, once things are moved to ABC, episodes will now be aired in order, and get back to being great and funny as we love them.'
http://tvoholic.com/episode-reviews/scrubs-my-princess/

Exams, and other things

2008-05-09T17:29:00.000-07:00

Hello all,

Recently, I have decided on several different strategies for exams. Firstly I was going to revise in my living room. This failed and resulted in my DvD collection being alphabetized. I have decided to write down lecture notes again, and this failed because I forgot it was boring. Thirdly, I decided to watch Yes, Minister for my New British Politics Class. However, this seemed to be too entertaining - that can't be productive.

In other news, the Conservatives climb to 26% above Labour in the opinion polls. Where are you Labourites?

And in interesting news, Avram Grant wants a playoff to decide the premiership, instead of goal difference. I can see what he is saying, even though we all know why he is saying it. However, I think goal difference should be encourage. Wenger said that really we should encourage the scoring of goals and therefore, if you scored more than 4 in a match, you get a bonus point. What an excellent idea, and it even came from Arsene Wenger. This would put Man united 3 points clear of Chelsea, but if it was for 3 goals, Arsene Wenger would be very happy indeed as they would be second. However, even here Manchester United go a further 5 points clear of both Chelsea and Arsenal. I wonder whether it will ever happen.
To see Grant look dumb - http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_3545648,00.html
Wow! On BBC 606 this part of the article has 14 comments! woo! http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A35798304

Speak to you after exams!

Pirates of the Carribean 3 At World's End Review

2008-05-07T06:58:00.001-07:00

Yes, I agree with everything he says. Really, save your money on these films and don't bother. Boring, long winded and they really do not make any sense. Poor story and poor acting also, and they aren't even funny.
Pirates 3 ** - Only watch if you REALLY ABSOLUTELY liked the second.
Pirates 2 *** - Only watch if you really liked the first.

Heroes Season 2 Review SPOILER ALERT!

2008-05-07T05:10:00.000-07:00

So they survived! Although a poor ending to a brilliant first season, on first glance Heroes Season 2 promised to be ace, Parkman, Molly and Mohinder were all back, Hiro was off in a 1600s Japanese adventure, and Peter Petrelli was off with the Irish. Where on Earth could it have gone wrong? Well it wasn't so much the returning characters. Bennett was still the cool 'man with the horn-rimmed glasses.' The Haitian was up to his usual tricks. Mohinder stayed the same. Although, Hiro left Ando behind and created a poor story out of something that could have been brilliant. This was one real mistake but what was bad were the new characters. The Mexico elite were only improved once Sylar showed up, and even then Maya is annoying, but not as annoying as her brother. Bob's daughter was particularly annoying and don't get me started about Claire and Peter Pan... Although Micah and his new friend were both interesting and Adam was superb. After the first 5 seemingly endless episodes, the series picked up, throwing Peter into the future. Once returning to find good old Adam waiting. Hiro returns to the future, and Bennett family troubles are back on the agenda. More to the point, Sylar's proximity to New York is increasing by the episode and Matt has just discovered how to use a new and some would say even more interesting power. The season finishes with a boom and for a short season, it was good enough to assume that I will be waiting for the next installment.
*** - Good for TV, not so good for Heroes. A good end so we will be watching season 3.

The legacy of the New Left

2008-05-06T03:44:00.000-07:00

I have heard many left-wing opinions on the Conservative Party and have noticed a serious switch in political opinion. The left are now authoritarian, anti-democratic and are quite frankly, prejudice. Very few racists and sexists are still members of the Tories. They are now members of UKIP or the BNP. The Tories have made changes and they have had to do so and the more I hear that I am a racist and wouldn't want people in the country if they aren't English, the more I think I have to question the intelligence on the left? They no longer learn from history. They still believe everything Marx says to be the word of God. They, similarly to how the right used to be, believe in the control of 'stupid' people's opinion. I thought this died in the early 20th century. If anything, positive discrimination is just as sexist as the Tories used to be. I've heard someone describe that their rejection by Cambridge was because of racist discrimination! Could it be that it is a difficult uni to get in to? Nah why would I say such a stupid thing. It must be racist or the victimized left must find someone to blame other than themselves. A notable feature of all leftist ideas from abortion to Boris Johnson being elected Mayor of London. I am a right Libertarian. I believe in free immigration, equality for both sexes, equality for all, and a universally democratic system. Apparently the left do no longer.

BNP: Fascist or not???

2008-05-02T07:23:00.000-07:00

In today's modern society, the word fascist has become a term used loosely and often completely unjustly. As Zeev Sternhell points out, many leaders have been called fascists from socialists, who were called 'social fascists' by communists, to Joseph McCarthy to Franco, to Mussolini and Hitler.^¹ This has caused much controversy in the use of the word and also has somewhat devalued the term itself. If anybody can be a fascist, then fascism is a common entity that cannot be escaped and will therefore, be ignored or even supported rather than fought against. In order to study fascism, the term must be defined and used only when deemed appropriate. This of course makes describing Nick Griffin's British National Party as being a fascist party difficult to do without strong evidence and support. That is why the first means to identifying fascism is to define the concept. However, this is no easy task. Zeev Sternhell makes it clear that the study of fascism is very much in it's infancy and is still making it's first step; defining fascism.^² Therefore to begin with I will explain the debate surrounding fascism between historians and social scientists, and the difficulty involved defining fascism. Once a definition or perhaps definitions have been determined, then the fascist nature of the BNP can be measured in terms of these definitions. Once this has been done, the BNP should be either identified as a fascist party, or instead merely a national populist party.

Like any ideology, fascism is extremely difficult to define. There is even disagreement^³on whether German Nazism is fascism because of the vast difference between it and Italian fascism. One such difference is the murder of 5 million Jews,^⁴ whereas Mussolini was surrounded by Jews.^⁵ This has led some people to the belief that German Nazism is another ideology altogether. But as Sternhell points out we can have such vast differences between democracies but it doesn't prevent us calling them democracies. Sternhell says 'It is highly probable that no single historical example can meet the exacting requirement of a carefully constructed 'model' of fascism or democracy.'^⁶ This can be seen today by comparing two modern democracies. In the United States, there is a president who is directly elected while in the United Kingdom, there is an appointed Prime Minister. This difference, as well as many other differences demonstrates that two modern democracies can be very different. Both the USA and the UK are generally understood to be democracies yet both are vastly different. .

Another problem in defining fascism is that any ideology is subject to change. Democracy in Britain evolved substantially and this has changed throughout the world to make many different versions all attempting to develop the perfect democracy. Fascism is more prone to this than any other ideology; this is due to the ultra-nationalism embedded in fascism's core ideology. Therefore fascism should adapt to the nation that the movement or party adheres to. As Robert Paxton puts it, 'They differ in space because each national variant of fascism draws it's legitimacy...not from some universal scripture but from what it considers the most authentic elements of its own community identity.'^⁷ Although Paxton disputes that fascism has any such 'universal scripture,' traits must be common amongst fascist groups. Therefore the trick found most difficult in defining fascism has not been due to the lack of common aspects of the fascist movements but rather defining fascism to exclude national populist groups. Most fascist movements can be said to have many traits in common with groups of this nature, notably their nationalism and their populism. But what makes them different to fascist movements? This question makes studying fascism much more difficult. It represents the trick that historians and social scientists are continually attempting with definitions and other pieces regarding fascism.

One important attempt at a definition that Roger Griffin has put forward in his 'New Consensus.' is the following

Fascism is a political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism.^⁸

This definition aims to differentiate between a fascist movement and a national populist movement as well as define fascism itself. This can be seen in the way the definition is phrased. Griffin states that fascism is a form of national populism but what makes it different is found in two areas of fascist ideology. There is it's mythic core and it's palingenetic form. The mythical core is used by fascist, often to support their nationalism. It's palingenetic form is that a fascist movement would usually call for 'rebirth' and for a, 'third way,' much different to that of capitalism and communism.^⁹ Each of these two common elements within fascist parties shall be analysed individually.

The mythical core of fascism is usually shown by the use of legends and myths to support the grandeur of the culture needed to provoke nationalist sentiment amongst it's citizens. For example, the Nazis used the myths of ancient Tibet to legitimize it's claim for the Aryan race being the strongest of all races.^¹⁰ These ideas allowed Hitler to make tangible the nationalist ideas that were so prevalent in his Nazi Party. Similarly, Mussolini was able to use similar mythology to encourage nationalism in Italy. He accomplished this by linking his movement to the old Roman Empire, particularly in his use of the Roman symbol of political authority.^¹¹ If it is correct to assume that Griffin is right to use this idea to differentiate fascism from mere national populism, then this feature must be identifiable in the ideology of the BNP.

The BNP's leader Nick Griffin may be the key to ascertain to what extent this is true for the BNP and as seen by the language used by the BNP and it's members. After looking at BNP ideology, it is easy to see that this aspect is clearly present in BNP ideology. The first few sentences of the BNP mission statement on the BNP website clearly demonstrate this belief. It states that;

The British National Party exists to secure a future for the indigenous peoples of these islands in the North Atlantic which have been our homeland for millennia. We use the term indigenous to describe the people whose ancestors were the earliest settlers here after the last great Ice Age and which have been complemented by the historic migrations from mainland Europe. The migrations of the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Norse and closely related kindred peoples have been, over the past few thousands years, instrumental in defining the character of our family of nations.^¹²

In this mission statement, the BNP confirm that central to their ideology and indeed their nationalism is a theory of national grandeur. They declare that they wish to, 'secure a future for the indigenous peoples of these islands in the North Atlantic which have been our homeland for millennia.' In the 2007 party manifesto, the BNP show it's intention to protect the, 'fundamental culture and identity of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles.'^¹³ In saying this, they are ignoring many current political facts such as devolution, Scottish and English nationalism and the strength of the separatists in the United Kingdom. This would suggest that their stating of these ideas is not there to be a set of policies because the BNP will need to rely on populism. If the party is not appealing to the broad majority, it can never become powerful and therefore seeks to merely justify the greatness of the British people. They also put this in racial terms. This can be seen in the way that the BNP include racial terms such as 'North European.'^¹⁴ Coupled with the rest of the statement and the manifestos, this clearly exaggerates the idea of a unified British racial identity and makes them a thing of legend as well as attempting to define a racial difference and a quality above other nationalities and races. Therefore their mission personifies the British people. They comment on it's 'character', and the 'migrations from mainland Europe' as being historic and that, 'the migrations of the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Norse and closely related kindred peoples have been, over the past few thousands years, instrumental in defining the character of our family of nations.' After describing the British people this way, the BNP then argues that it should halt all immigration.^¹⁵ This mythical core is being used to justify its racism and ultra-nationalism.

In terms of it's palingenetic core, the BNP emphasize this just as little as any other more radical parts of their ideology. The call for rebirth is very limited but can still be found within it's manifesto but in limited detail. Rebirth in terms of what Roger Griffin means, tells us of a totalitarian natured ideology^¹⁶ and this is certainly inherent in what the BNP are currently promoting. It as already been mentioned that in terms of free speech, the BNP aim to control the media and any 'lies' released by the media would be subject to their conviction under a 'new criminal offence.'^¹⁷ This certainly gives the BNP a new control over free speech but what of other aspects of life? Also, what does the old BNP have to say on the nature of totalitarianism?

In terms of other aspects of life, the BNP seem to intend to create a society based on localised control.^¹⁸ This is very significant as this would mean that the government would certainly have a tighter control over the population. When these new laws against free speech (we are of course unsure if their laws will encompass the entire population or just the media) are coupled with the re-establishing of the death penalty as well as the re-strengthening of the police whilst removing 'the political correctness shackles from them,'^¹⁹ the likelihood of a tighter hold under the BNP may become more apparent than is made clear in this manifesto. There are clear limitations to the manifesto but once more, the question is how much have these more radical ideas been taken from the surface rather than from the core?^²⁰

The answer from what has been explained so far must be that the BNP have much more fascist ideology in their core than on it's surface. Even on it's surface, the BNP have what could perhaps be called fascist ideology. In terms of it's past, both Nick Griffin and of course Tyndall can be traced to a fascist and indeed a belief in the third way. This third way is a common belief amongst fascists. Nick Griffin for example was the founder member of the International Third Position (ITP).^²¹ To this day he appears to support this idea when he confirms that they are not there to merely reform the system.^²²

The final part of Roger Griffin's definition clearly needs us to look into the populist and nationalistic aspects as well as it's purely fascist devices. As we have already seen, the BNP are clearly nationalist. They propose such policies as the complete end to immigration.^²³ As well as it's name, we can assume that the party is almost certainly nationalist and if not, as already discussed, racist as well. In terms of it's populism, other than general feature of it's manifesto, the party can be seen to be populist in many different ways. The most obvious of these aspects is it's support for democracy despite historically and even in it's current core of ideas, believing in what can only be described as an authoritarian style dictatorship. This clearly is populist as it certainly does not appear to be a major belief of Griffin's.

The BNP not only fall into the category of fascism in terms of Roger Griffin's definition but also in terms of Robert Paxton's theories. Paxton stresses the difficulties involved in defining fascism as being due to it's constant change through a cycle.^²⁴ If we are able to support the argument that the BNP are fascist, we should be able to find the stage, which the BNP are at today and find the stage that the BNP were at under Tyndall, the previous leader of the BNP. Paxton's five stages are: '(1) the initial creation of fascist movements; (2) their rooting as parties in a political system; (3) the acquisition of power; (4) the exercise of power; and, finally, in the longer term, (5) radicalization or entropy.'^²⁵ As logic dictates to us, the last three stages of the cycle cannot be the current state of the BNP as the BNP have little power and as these require the BNP to be in power, these can be ignored for our purposes here. The initial creation of the fascist movement could however, adhere to how the BNP began. Paxton makes clear that the first requirement of this stage is that the movement appears in any country where democracy is 'sufficiently implanted.'^²⁶ Paxton then combines this need with the reaction to 'claimed failings of democracy.'^²⁷

The BNP clearly show throughout their manifestos a claim for the failure of the current system of government. Even recently they include such phrases such as, 'Restoring British Democracy^²⁸' as the title of their manifesto in 2005. Throughout their current manifesto, they clearly criticize the current government but the BNP have added escape clauses for the antidemocratic nature of their party. This was clearly included to keep the hard line fascist nature of the party intact. The anti-democratic and indeed fascist ideas found refuge in the party along with their fascist founder and former leader, John Tyndall.^²⁹ It would be wise to assume that the party under Tyndall was a fascist party therefore fulfilling Paxton's first stage. This is because the BNP originally were very much centred around an etiquette of violence. Nick Griffin himself called the old party a fascist party.^³⁰ Therefore it appears to represent a more radical form of fascism and this would link closely to the submerging of this radical policy under the surface. This is indeed required to begin the change to the second stage.

This change began with Nick Griffin becoming the leader of the party. This prompted the BNP to make their message more 'saleable.'^³¹ Now, in Griffin's eyes, the BNP had changed to become a less radical and more modern form of national populism. But it appears that the manifestos still include these ideas in the form of escape clauses and hidden away. This means that when a passer-by checks their internet page, their manifesto has little evidence of the fascism that supposedly only once was.^³² It also shows belief in ideas that are anti-fascist. For example, the party does seem to laminate it's defence of democracy, it's stand against ID cards, and it's will to save 'traditional free speech'.^³³ By using these methods, it makes a rather intelligible attempt to put the old way of fascism far from the BNP.

On the other hand, even in it's manifesto, the BNP still have fascist ideology clearly structured. Although these ideas are clear, they are very much tucked away in the 52 page document. Their protection of free speech is very much revoked by the policy that the BNP would find, 'serious cases' of deliberate distribution of false statements in violation of a new criminal offence.^³⁴ The BNP appear to have supported free speech but then decided in one sentence to provide for it's more radical members, and escape clause. In this way the BNP may have had a change but does not appear to have changed much below it's surface. The ideology of the BNP has seemingly only one thing, which clearly has been changed and that is the saleability of the BNP. Therefore, Tyndall represented the old radical-style BNP ie. Paxton’s first stage while Nick Griffin era moves towards Paxton’s second stage which can involve quite radical changes. Although Griffin does not aim to make the policies completely different but to make them more attractive to people by breaking with the Moseleyite style of fascism.^³⁵ Paxton makes it clear that the original ideas are 'betrayed' and that they are also often ignored.^³⁶ For the BNP, Tyndall would certainly argue that Griffin had betrayed the old BNP ideas. In fact, he did in many articles and other media outlets.^³⁷

There are reasons however to assume that the BNP does not fall comfortably into this category. Paxton points out that usually fascist parties, 'do not annul or amend their early programmes. They simply ignore them.'^³⁸ In addition, for this second stage of fascism, the BNP is required to be rooted in the political system. Indeed, they still have some way to go to achieve this aim. However, the fascists must survive in the 21^st Century without being an exact copy of the fascism of the 1930s. As well as this being a party in Britain is very much different to that of elsewhere. The BNP have to survive in a modern democracy and this has provoked many different ideas to shape within it's brand of fascism. Unlike Hitler, the BNP have been unable to completely speak out against democracy. Yet they have still kept anti-democracy in their core beliefs.^³⁹ Unlike Hitler, the BNP also have to contend with the image of Hitler. This in itself has provoked populist methods of disconnecting the BNP from the Nazi party. For example, it would be logical to conclude that the need for a manifesto and a need for pro-democratic etiquette would be a result of the BNP's and indeed fascists' populism and therefore this fact doesn't make the BNP any less fascist.

In terms of the rooting of fascism in the political system, it appears that the BNP have indeed done that to a certain extent. Not completely but the stages appear to be more gradual than the five steps. The BNP have representatives in local government but have found it difficult to enter parliament. This could be because of the style of electoral system in the UK. The style requires a party to beat all the other parties in the constituency and would mean that the BNP would need to be the majority in the country before it gained power because this system is a majoritarian system. This combined with the differences between now and seventy years ago, causes different stages and indeed different policies to come from fascist parties. Therefore, the BNP still fit with Paxton's stages. This makes it all the more likely, given the differences and varying factors involved, that the BNP are in fact fascist.

In conclusion, despite the difficulties involved in defining fascism, it would be dangerous to assume that the BNP had become a national-populist party. The BNP fit into not only one definition but two different definitions of fascism. It has a very radical past and it appears that this has not changed. Many BNP policies fit with those of many of the population today as they did many years ago. This should not tempt those wise enough to know what the BNP stand for but for those who don't, there is possibility that they will become more of an attractive proposition. The BNP today continue to gain support but the challenge of becoming a strong party in British politics has not yet been accomplished. However, should a crisis arise, the BNP would be in a formidable position to challenge the established order. Especially as the changes implemented by Nick Griffin have made it more justifiable for the average British person to vote for the BNP. This makes a dangerous but containable threat much more dangerous. As Paxton warns us, 'Are they [fascists] becoming rooted as parties that represented major interests and feelings and wield major influence on the political scene?'^⁴⁰ Therefore it must be argued that indeed, the BNP are fascist and any intellectual should recognise fascist elements within the BNP. Consequently, in my opinion, the case should be contested but the difficulty to define fascism makes it easier for the BNP and Nick Griffin to defend their claim that they are not fascist.

Bibliography

The British National Party 2005 Manifesto' http://www.bnp.org.uk/candidates2005/manifesto/manf3.htm as visited 08/11/07

'The British National Party Mission' http://www.bnp.org.uk/mission.htm as visited 04/11/07

'The British National Party Summary Manifesto' http://www.bnp.org.uk/pdf_files/minimanifesto2007.pdf as visited 02/11/07

Copsey, N, 'Changing Course or Changing Clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006', Patterns of Prejudice, 41:1, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313220601118777

Griffin, R. 'The Palingenetic Core of Generic Fascist Ideology' (2003). Available online (sometimes) at http://ah.brookes.ac.uk/history/staff/griffin/coreoffascism.pdf Accessed 16/10/07

Griffin, Nick Extracts from Interview with Nick Griffin Date of the interview- 22/10/01 BBC Online at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/programmes/2001/bnp_special/the_leader/interview.txt as visited 02/11/07

Hale, C Himmler's Crusade: The Nazi Expedition To Find The Origins Of The Aryan Race (John Wiley & Sons, Honoken NJ, 2003)

Jenkins, J Hitler and Nazism (Longman, Essex, 1998)

Mann, M. Fascists (2004) Chapter 3 'Italy Pristine Fascists'

Paxton, Robert O. 'The Five Stages of Fascism' The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 70, No. 1. (Mar., 1998), The University of Chicago Press viewed online at http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2801%28199803%2970%3A1%3C1%3ATFSOF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3 as viewed on 08/10/07

Piper, F ‘The number of victims at KL Auschwitz’ a leaflet in Auschwitz: The Nazi Death Camp Ošwiecim State Museum

Sternhell, Z, 'Fascist Ideology,' in W. Laqueur (ed.), Fascism: A Reader's Guide On-line at http://www.coloradocollege.edu/dept/PS/Finley/PS425/reading/sternhell.html Accessed 16/10/2007

Footnotes:

1Sternhell, Z, 'Fascist Ideology,' in W. Laqueur (ed.), Fascism: A Reader's Guide On-line at http://www.coloradocollege.edu/dept/PS/Finley/PS425/reading/sternhell.html Accessed 16/10/2007 Pg.1

2Ibid,. Pg. 1

3Sternhell, Z, 'Fascist Ideology,' P. 3

4 APMO, Höss Trial, vol. 8, cards 28-9. As quoted in Piper, F ‘The number of victims at KL Auschwitz’ a leaflet in Auschwitz: The Nazi Death Camp Ošwiecim State Museum, P. 187

5Paxton, Robert O. 'The Five Stages of Fascism' The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 70, No. 1. (Mar., 1998), The University of Chicago Press viewed online at http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2801%28199803%2970%3A1%3C1%3ATFSOF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3 as viewed on 08/10/07 P. 2

6Ibid,. Pg. 2

7Paxton, Robert O. 'The Five Stages of Fascism' Pg. 3

8Griffin, R. 'The Palingenetic Core of Generic Fascist Ideology' (2003). Available online (sometimes) at http://ah.brookes.ac.uk/history/staff/griffin/coreoffascism.pdf Accessed 16/10/07 Pg. 5

9Griffin, R. 'The Palingenetic Core of Generic Fascist Ideology'. Pgs. 6-7

10Jenkins, J Hitler and Nazism (Longman, Essex, 1998) Pgs. 61-64 (See Also Christopher Hale Himmler's Crusade: The Nazi Expedition To Find The Origins Of The Aryan Race (John Wiley & Sons, Honoken NJ, 2003))

11Mann, M. Fascists (2004) Chapter 3 'Italy Pristine Fascists' Pg. 93

12'The British National Party Mission' http://www.bnp.org.uk/mission.htm as visited 04/11/07

13'The British National Party Summary Manifesto' http://www.bnp.org.uk/pdf_files/minimanifesto2007.pdf as visited 02/11/07 Pg. 5

14Copsey, N, 'Changing Course or Changing Clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006', Patterns of Prejudice, 41:1, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313220601118777

15'The British National Party 2005 Manifesto' http://www.bnp.org.uk/candidates2005/manifesto/manf3.htm as visited 08/11/07

16Copsey, N 'Changing Course or Changing Clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006', Patterns of Prejudice. Pg. 64

17Rebuilding British Democracy. British National Party Gerneral Election 2005 Manifesto (Welshpool, Powys: BNP 2005), Pg. 9 As quoted in Nigel Copsey 'Changing Course or Changing Clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006', Patterns of Prejudice Pg. 76

18'The British National Party Summary Manifesto' Pg. 17

19Ibid,. Pg. 6

20Copsey, N 'Changing Course or Changing Clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006', Patterns of Prejudice Pgs. 79-81

21Copsey, N 'Changing Course or Changing Clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006', Patterns of Prejudice. Pg. 67

22Griffin, Nick, 'It is more than a popular protest-it's a revolution in thought', Identity, no. 35, August 2003, 6. As quoted in Nigel Copsey 'Changing Course or Changing Clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006', Patterns of Prejudice Pgs. 78-9 “'Are we just here to reform the system, or change it completely?', Griffin asked. 'The answer, of course, is that we are not here to reform things'

23'The British National Party Summary Manifesto' Pg. 5

24Paxton, R 'The Five Stages of Fascism' Journal of Modern History,

25Ibid,. Pg. 11

26Ibid,. Pg. 11

27Ibid,. Pg. 12

28Rebuilding British Democracy. British National Party Gerneral Election 2005 Manifesto (Welshpool, Powys: BNP 2005), As quoted in Nigel Copsey 'Changing Course or Changing Clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006', Patterns of Prejudice

29Copsey, N 'Changing Course or Changing Clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006', Patterns of Prejudice Pgs. 63-77

30Copsey, N 'Changing Course or Changing Clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006', Patterns of Prejudice Pg. 62

31Griffin, Nick Extracts from Interview with Nick Griffin Date of the interview- 22/10/01 BBC Online at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/programmes/2001/bnp_special/the_leader/interview.txt as visited 02/11/07 (Nick Griffin: “Of course we're making our message more saleable, yes.”)

32Ibid,. Pg. 76

33'The British National Party Summary Manifesto' Pg. 17

34Rebuilding British Democracy. British National Party Gerneral Election 2005 Manifesto (Welshpool, Powys: BNP 2005), Pg. 9 As quoted in Nigel Copsey 'Changing Course or Changing Clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006', Patterns of Prejudice Pg. 76

35Ibid,. Pg. 79

36Paxton, R 'The Five Stages of Fascism' Journal of Modern History,Pgs. 14-15

37Copsey, N 'Changing Course or Changing Clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006', Patterns of Prejudice Pgs. 69-72

38Paxton, R 'The Five Stages of Fascism' Journal of Modern History,Pg. 15

39Copsey, N 'Changing Course or Changing Clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006', Patterns of Prejudice Pgs. 63-77

40Paxton, R 'The Five Stages of Fascism' Journal of Modern History,Pg. 22

This essay is answering whether the BNP should sue a newspaper who called them fascist. As far as I am aware this is a fictional question and was for the purpose of an essay for my university course.

Everyone has Aids.

2008-03-02T00:08:00.000-08:00

Many people told me that Team America: World Police was the dumbest movie ever made. They told me that the script was silly, and not thought out very well, and that it just appealed to 10-year old boys. Well I must object to this Team America attack right now. The film is sensational. There is no other word for it. The film is neither dumb nor silly, but rather one of the most intelligent, and witty films I have seen in a long, long time.
The film takes political correctness and not only throws it out, but quite literally throws up on it. Even this scene I am referring to where a puppet is seen throwing up for quite literally 3 minutes is brilliant and witty. It may seem like it is not and I never thought that I would read a lot out of nothing, but this film actually does say a lot in simple ideas. Even the tittle of this blog, 'Everyone has Aids', may seem a dumb overtone, but this song is supposed to be a witty engaging with the musical Rent (It is called Lease in the film). This film attacks both left and right in a witty, and politically incorrect way. It does so as it draws on many of our different perceptions of life and uses them to create a film. Team America: World Police, as a title sums up the film.
**** - 4 Stars - Excellent but if you do not like satire, probably not your thing.

Be Kind Rewid

2008-03-01T05:03:00.000-08:00

Be Kind Rewind is about a small old Video Store in which Jerry (Jack Black) has erased all the video tapes which prompts him and pal Mike (Mos Def) who is left in charge of the store, to produce their own versions of classics like Ghostbusters, Robocop, The Lion King and many other good films resulting in lots of laughs. This leads to complications when a Hollywood lawyer (Sigourney Weaver) destroys the tapes due to copyright law.
Be Kind Rewind is impressive and has a very warm heart. It has depth and is a completely original idea that seems to provoke feeling for the well-acted characters. The film is a little slow and is a difficult premise to work with but this is sold well by Black and Def.
Be Kind Rewind is a great film but what is more interesting is that it was the first film that truly captured how we, as the audience, feel about copyright. I wonder whether anybody would take up their idea. I would like to sign up with normal people in my town to make a short film. No money, no auditions just pure film. With me in it. Maybe one day.
**** 4 Stars - Worth your money on a quieter night.