Richard Spencer

June 08, 2009

This weekend?s EU elections are a puzzle wrapped in an enigma stirred up in a pot of mixed signals.

The Center Right cemented its hegemony, and the socialists lost out. And so we can thankfully say that Europeans don?t seem to be going the way of Icelanders, electing the political equivalent of Bj?rk in the face of economic crisis. Then again, only 43 percent of registered voters came out to the polls, completing a steady decline in participation that twenty years ago was in the 80-percent range. Then again, who could blame them? ?Europe? has become a Byzantine bureaucracy that?s unintelligible to the average voter, and seemingly accountable to no one. The ?far Right? parties, such as Geert Wilders?s Freedom Party and Nick Griffin?s British National Party did quite well. And, interestingly, in the parliamentary pie chart, ?other? and ?non-aligned? groupings outnumber the socialists, and are just behind the conservatives. Then again, what the ?far Right? represents for Europe is rather equivocal (at least for me), and there?s reason to believe that it mostly amounts to a protest vote. Then again, this isn?t an altogether bad thing? 

Derek Turner has already written an excellent piece on Geert Wilders, and he?ll be submitting something to us soon on the recent elections, so for now let?s focus on the BNP. 

On last week?s Freedom Watch program?the fantastic Internet-only show on Foxnews.com, hosted by Judge Anthony Napolitano and featuring tons of Takimag friends and contributors like Peter Schiff, Lew Rockwell, and Tom Woods?my friend Shelly Roche, who throughout the hour takes viewer responses via Twitter, said that the BNP was what everyone was ?tweeting? about. Freedom Watch is, of course, a libertarian show, and Daniel Hannan, the classical liberal MEP who was on with ?The Judge,? was a bit dismayed by the focus on the British Nationalists, claiming that the BNP was a socialist party of the far Left masquerading as conservative and traditionalist.

Such ?liberal fascist? interpretations are, of course, a bit overdone. The BNP is solidly conservative, and anti-war for the right reasons. Then again, Hannan definitely has a point. The BNP is, without question, a post-fascist party, and some of this baggage has led it to support Clement Atlee?s ?noble ideal? of social welfare and public housing; BNP members just don?t want any of the public moolah to go to free-loading Muslims; it should only be doled out to hard-working Brits with hearts of gold.

It?s proper for Griffin to oppose a wealth transfer from citizen taxpayers to foreigners and immigrants; and I?m also right there with him in terms of the need for immigration restriction. Then again, the British managerial state, which Griffin doesn?t so much want to dismantle as re-invigorate, has presided over not only the destruction of traditional British manners and cultural unity but also the suppression of liberty and free speech. As socialism has expanded, Britain has gotten a whole lot uglier. Recognizing this fact is necessary for anyone who wants to reign in the power of the Brussels superstate.   

While there?s reason to give one or two cheers for the BNP, I?m still more inspired by the regionalism, ?libertarianism,? and secessionism of new wave parties like the Vlaams Belang, which are better constituted as defenders of Western civilization.