Home > General Politics > The BNP and the Royals deserve each other

The BNP and the Royals deserve each other

I didn’t think much in the world of politics could shock me anymore. Yet the news that the BNP are to be invited to Buckingham Palace shocks me. My republicanism has not been pronounced over the last few years because there’ve been other things to attend to. When attending picket lines or passing out leaflets there isn’t a lot of time to be denouncing the parasitic organism that is the Royal Family. Not when there are Tories aiming to take every last penny from the working man’s pocket and the Fascists aiming to relocate half of Britain abroad just because we don’t measure up to what they consider to be British.

However, the news that the BNP are to be invited shouldn’t surprise me so grievously. After all, it’s well recorded that various members of the Royal Family are outright racists, and their ancestors – ironically, German immigrants – were no less so. These are people who presided (and preside!) over the bullying and butchering of how many people and nations simply because our armies are stronger and it is in the interest of our native capitalists to do so. Far from being the doting parents of the nation, the Royals personify everything that is plain evil about a class-based system of exploitation.

Let the BNP have their garden party. If one fucking member of the Greens or Labour appears at such an event, alongside that odious racist Griffin, then they are a traitor to their movement. Yet long have been the years since MacDonald and his cabinet went cap in hand to recieve their offices from the King, dressed in finery far removed from the conditions of the workers they were supposed to represent, and many have been the betrayals – of men and women fighting to put bread and butter on their table, no less. One more such betrayal will probably not plague their consciences.

Categories: General Politics
  1. May 20, 2009 at 10:21 pm

    We should look at is another opportunity to challenge the BNP appropriation of the maistream by, as you suggesting, organising a boycott of the garden party by all those in Labour/Green party.

    Or am I just too optimisitic about life?

  2. May 21, 2009 at 3:10 pm

    I don’t think you’re optimistic here. There probably will be a boycott of anyone with some solid socialist principles. If you look at Liberal Conspiracy, it’s the Tory numpties and the whiny careerist liberal maggot apologists for hate speech that are defending the BNP right to attend. How many contortions do you reckon a liberal has to get through before they start considering the monarchy as politically neutral?

    Well, get this, Labour and the Greens have a right to tell her Maj to stuff it. They should exercise it.

  3. May 24, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    I’m not one to usually jump in to defend the Royals but I think you must have written this post in a state of emotive fury rather than cool-headed analysis. From reading this you would think that the Queen had personally put in a request that “that lovely Mr.Griffin who speaks so much sense” be invited around to Buck House for tea, whereas in fact the only reason Griffin might be able to attend is because all GLA members get to bring a guest and Barnbrook says he wants the BNP leader to be his hot date. So it doesn’t really have anything to do with the opinions of the Royal family.

  4. May 24, 2009 at 4:38 pm

    Remind me Jack, who lives at Buckingham Palace and hosts the garden party and could, at a whim, uninvite whoever she chose? It wouldn’t be that lovely Mrs Windsor would it?

  5. May 31, 2009 at 2:14 pm

    David, If your interested, I’ve blogged about you guys and this post over on my site, cheers

  6. May 31, 2009 at 5:37 pm

    I am always interested to see what others have to say about my writing, so thank you for taking the time to engage. That said, I’ve read your counter article several times and I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. I also think your article includes a number of lazy assumptions (in-keeping with your tagline?).

    About the authors of this site, I suspect that you and I would disagree as to whom the term forefathers can be applied, since you mention that we seem unhappy with everything our forefathers have ‘built’. John Lilbourne, Gerard Winstanley, Tom Paine and many other radicals and revolutionaries all the way to Harry Pollitt could be categorised as our forefathers; so please don’t be so lazy to assume the monolithic nature of Britain’s historical narrative.

    I daresay some of those ‘forefathers’ are themselves turning in their grave at what they can be accused of having built, even hundreds of years after their deaths. To more substantive matters however!

    Your first point in defence of the monarchy is, largely by inference and implication, that the Queen is popular around the world (based on the success of a film, rather than something more important like the Australians voting to keep the monarchy) and therefore of use to us. Except this relies on several assumptions that don’t necessarily follow.

    1. Just because the film is a success, doesn’t mean the monarchy is. 2. Just because the monarchy here is popular doesn’t mean the citizens of the US or French Republic relish the idea of having one. 3. Just because popularity is useful in a head of state doesn’t mean that popularity is attached to royalty simply because it is royalty.

    I suspect pomp and circumstance have a lot more to do with it. The President of the United States is often one of most celebrated figures in the world, and he is not royalty. Heads of State often have this effect – I would simply suggest, however, that very few heads of state are treated by their home countries with the dignity of Mrs Windsor or Mr Obama. This is also tied into our status as a great power, and again unrelated to the nature of royalty in the human psyche, per se.

    Your second point is that to someone who regards British history with disdain, a constitutional monarchy would seem obviously wonky. I think British history has sod all to do with it. Mrs Windsor may be able to trace her line back to William the Bastard, but so what? My point has little to nothing to do with history; for better or worse, it is our history.

    I am opposed to a constitutional monarchy because I am a democrat, and a republican, and I am these things because I believe them to be in the best interests of myself and every worker in the British Isles. I feel no loyalty towards a constitution which sanctioned the murder and pillage of an empire, nor its personified representative. I have no affection for a person merely because they are related to men who were bigger murdering bastards than my own direct antecedents.

    Finally, you introduce Socrates to the argument. The flimsy postmodern pretext is to claim that Socrates suggested we can know nothing. But you give the lie to it yourself; you start a blog and show an interest in politics and have even picked your side. So if you demolish my epistemological foundations, you demolish your own.

    I think Socrates was an interesting choice, since he was a committed anti-democrat, who trained tyrants (though not using the nihilistic nonsense you suggest – I really think you should read some of Plato’s dialogues or Xenophon’s Memorabilia or Apologia) and who was executed by a vote of the people of Athens.

    Anything I left out?

    PS. I do love pancetta, now you mentioned it.
    PPS. Pickets are boring. We’re there because we have to be.

  7. June 7, 2009 at 5:01 pm

    I knew I was on rocky ground when I blabbed about Socrates. Don’t think he was an anarchist though, and Plato was more concerned with the missuse of power in his Republic? …I’ll hurry on away from that… you’ll be preaching the epistles to the apostles as Danny said…

    The post was deliberately left open to try to provoke thought, so sorry if it appears lazy, when all I was really doing was trying to leave the subject vague enough for debate. Seem to be doing that here, which is good.

    Yes some of those turning in their graves may be the reformers of the nineteenth century, although not sure they were all dedicated republicans

    Back to Queenie. I think where our positions diverge is that I’m much more drawn to our shared identity and heritage, and the Royal’s, murdering bastards as you know them, are part of that. Don’t forget we’ve already dumped them, and a few years later people wanted them back. Having the army running the state wasn’t nearly so nice, and yes it’s different today, but I just think dumping everything that is currently retained to give people a sense of belonging isn’t the answer. These are instinctive thoughts so not so easy to explain, but most just emigrate if the pace pisses them off that much.

  8. June 7, 2009 at 6:23 pm

    Socrates was not an anarchist; he was simply anti-democratic. Several of his pupils went on to lead the butchery of the Thirty Tyrants. Of Socrates himself, nothing survives – only the recordings of Plato and Xenophon, which is the only reason I mentioned Plato.

    I don’t think you have the right perspective on where our positions diverge. Firstly, I am drawn to a sense of shared identity – but the identity to which I am drawn is one that does not encompass the Monarchy. The sense of identity which I feel keenly is based rather on those things which the British people have achieved inspite of rather than because of their ruling class and the monarchy.

    Democracy, freedom of speech and so forth.

  1. May 21, 2009 at 9:34 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 145 other followers

%d bloggers like this: