One thing I got wrong in trying to answer The Big Question in The Independent this morning, was to say that "one of the most surprising" names on the leaked BNP membership list was that of someone who stood as a Green Party candidate in the 2001 and 2005 elections.
What I meant was "one of the names that was not surprising at all", because there has been a philosophical overlap between the "deep" green movement and fascism from the early years of both.
Yesterday, the Green Party admitted that two of its former activists had been exposed as members of the BNP: Keith Bessant, its parliamentary candidate at Cheltenham in 2001 and 2005, and a Rev Stanton.
This reminded me of the origins of the British National Party in the break-up of the National Front in 1980, and the confusion that followed. For a while there were two National Fronts, as well as a growing BNP. The larger NF fell under the influence of Patrick Harrington, the most recent prophet of the "Third Way" before Tony Blair (the phrase has both fascist and centrist antecedents, with Oswald Mosley's New Party and Harold Macmillan both using it in the 1930s).
The NF relaunched itself as the National Democrats in 1995 as a final spasm before lapsing into its present almost moribund state. But that whole phase was heavily influenced by an eco-nationalist message based on the "blood and soil" notion of a smaller, more sustainable, culturally and ethnically homogenous population, a kind of sub-Tolkien Anglo-Saxon fantasy.It is a fantasy that can come uncomfortably close to some of the more backward-looking politics of the fundamentalist wing of the green movement.
I am a Green Party member and have been for many years. I understand where John Rentoul is coming from however I think those comments are rather harsh.
There is little love lost between Greens and fascists. I oppose almost every aspect of their credo - particularly their refusal to acknowledge that our common humanity binds us far closer than issues such as disability, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or anything else can ever separate us.
What I think John may be referring to is the tendency of a few Greens to 'dictate' what is good for people in the light of issues such as dwindling resources, population growth and of course global warming.
Let me reassure you that there are many Greens, myself most definitely included, who recognise that politics is the art of persuasion and that we need to provide attractive alternatives before we can reasonably ask people to give up certain aspects of modern life. For instance there's little point asking people to leave cars at home without good transport alternatives - safe cycle lanes, good tubes, buses and trams.
There is a stripe of Green who loves to do without and would like other people to as well. For myself I always warmed to that 1980s T Shirt with the slogan 'if you can't dance it ain't my revolution.'
I believe in the life affirming politics of fun. We only have so many years upon this earth, they may as well be joyous ones. Heck I'd even like to make Jeremy Clarkson happy in a Green Britain - I'm not quite sure how we might do that but it strikes me as important that we seek to restrict people' freedom of choice as rarely as possible and leave it to them to take considerate decisions that are mindful of the needs of other people. And if Mr C can't from time to time drive a ridiculous car in a ridiculous manner what a sad world we would have made.
So in short please be studied in your linking green and fascist politics - there are many of us who feel we could not be further away from the politics of misery and hate they peddle.
Posted by: Jonathan | Thursday, 20 November 2008 at 03:51 PM
It is always obvious when a person has a poor argument or position to defend in that they attack by linking the subject matter to something demonstrably wrong. Hence I don't like greens I know let's link them to fascists. This is the consistent theme people use in their argument against green politics as there is really no other defense for not following their policies. People should be brave enough to admit that they, like Clarkson, are happy to drive 4 x 4's or whatever for their own pleasure and damn the consequences.
Posted by: rod evans | Thursday, 20 November 2008 at 05:35 PM
At least the BNP is now the most open, honest political party in the UK; many people will notice that there's nothing wrong in being a BNP member and it has no effect on their well being or livelyhood. They will also notice the sheer spite, hatred and fear of the Truth exhibited by the hacks and politicians who rule us. What comes around...etc
Posted by: Isaac Brown | Friday, 21 November 2008 at 08:30 AM
Well Tony I'm taking it that if you knew what Fascist meant that you'd have taken the trouble to enlighten us.
So assuming that you're in the dark yourself it's derived from the Latin fasces, an axe bound in the centre of a bundle of rods symbolising the absolute authority of the state to beat and to execute.
The modern term fascist arose to describe political movements based around a central authority figure or group of figures wielding similar absolute power. Given that the first modern fascist movement arose in Italy and co-opted the imagery of Imperial Rome the link is rather obvious.
Whether the BNP is simply a racist ultra-nationalist party or an out and out fascist party is up for debate. I suppose what they lack is a charismatic leader and snappy uniforms. I'd rather not wait around while they manage to acquire either or both.
But perhaps we should simply agree on their being a nasty bunch of educationally challenged bigots.
Posted by: Jonathan | Friday, 21 November 2008 at 08:37 AM
One of the former members was a Reverend. Does that mean we should look to some link between Christianity and Fascism?
Posted by: James | Friday, 21 November 2008 at 11:38 AM
It's interesting, and instructive, that Rentoul corrects himself for expressing surprise that 2 ex-greens are now affiliated to the BNP; given the pervasive and historic association of the organised Christian church with the ultra-right, I would have expected the correction to relate to his failure to highlight that 1 ex-green BNP member is, in fact, current clergy.
As interesting are Rentoul's true to form designations of "fascist" and "centrist":
Apparently, a prime minister who, on election, reneged on nearly all socially progressive elements of his 1997 manifesto, clarified that the UK is willing to deploy nuclear weapons against states that do not have them, spearheaded an aggressive privatisation program, openly supported the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Israeli religious fundamentalists, and, in the opinion of anyone that matters (including the governments own statisticians) bears significant personal responsibility for the violent deaths of over 655,000 Iraqi’s is a "centrist".
Meanwhile, a moron joining the BNP (without doubt an atrocious organisation, but not one which is in possession of nuclear weapons or currently encircling Iran) triggers concern of an overlap between “deep “Greens and fascists.
Never mind John, If you’re going to pick a target, there’s no reason to depart from the liberal journalistic tradition of making it a soft one, eh?!
Posted by: Kristian | Friday, 21 November 2008 at 01:18 PM
Those of us Greens who have had threats from the BNP because of our political views take a dim view of this cheap linkage. When another paper is reporting 9 ex-Conservatives on the list, apparently also former PPCs, why the emphasis on the Greens John?
Posted by: Peter Cranie | Friday, 21 November 2008 at 03:30 PM
Sounds rather like the bleatings of Exxon and some of the other big oil wasters who pay scientists to tell lies, suggesting that climate change does not exist, for them. Look at politicians how many follow BNP principles without being members of the party and on the other hand how many adhere to Friends of the Earth?
Posted by: Micbak | Saturday, 22 November 2008 at 10:26 AM
This is no surprise. The green movement is a pluralist one that hasn't strictly parked its views on any side of the left-right divide. For every 'leftist' green that tries to balance social and environmental justice, there exist other 'Planet First' greens, who aspire to a view that the world's problems aren't just attributable to rampant economic growth, but also perceived rampant over-population. The politics of the BNP seem a match made in heaven for this faction of the movement. The BNP's economic policy is excessively protectionist and will lock developing countries out of trade opportunities - increasing poverty. Add this to the repatriation of non-indigenous people - which could just as easily include British Irish immigrants from the potato famine era, as well as their 'usual suspects'. These policies effectively constitute the ethnic cleansing of certain peoples from the global capitalist system, whilst solving their collective paranoia surrounding over-population.
Posted by: Steve | Sunday, 23 November 2008 at 10:25 PM