This weekend, over Easter, leader of the BNP Nick Griffin put out a statement explaining that the BNP is the only party fighting for traditional Christian values. It is part of the BNP’s attempt to redraw its battle lines, recognising that the exposed hatred of other races is not winning them votes, but instead tapping into the increasing fear that our country (whatever that phrase may mean) is being changed, subverted, made not what it once was. And it seems that part of this is to reclaim Britain for the “traditional” Christian. This needs to be unpacked.
First and briefly, there’s the most obvious point. As anyone who gives any thought to the matter will ask and has asked repeatedly, to just when exactly in Britain’s past do these people wish to retreat? Should we go pre-Angles? Before the Saxons? Perhaps it’s the Roman invasion that muddied our British gene pool? Or is the problem Britain’s own dirty foray with mainland Europe until 9000 years ago, when it was so disgustingly physically joined onto the continent? Something that allowed those Africans to just walk into OUR country and settle its first human population 500,000 years ago. Why can’t we just go back to those pre-Homo heidelbergensis days, when this country understood proper Christian values?
The idiocy of taking any position that argues there’s anything inherently “British” is inescapable. You cannot reason or rationalise with people who are unequipped to recognise that fighting to preserve some sense of British purity is patent nonsense. But of course what they really mean is “white”. They want a return to the earlier 20th century, before we so desperately needed immigration in order to maintain the country’s infrastructure after two world wars. There’s a brief window of perceived perfection, post industrial-revolution, pre-1950s, that contains this magical Britishness, this value, this predominantly white nation where those of other skin-tones knew their place in subjugation. European invasions are perfectly acceptable because their melanin levels were acceptably low. It’s only ever about race, no matter how it’s worded.
Second is this idea of a traditional Christianity. This is another phrase so nonsensical as to be almost impossible to argue with. (Similarly the BNP are of course amongst those who rally against “global warming”, pointing out that it’s just madness to claim this when it’s snowing in April! Somewhat ignoring the part where no scientist is talking about “global warming”, but rather “global climate change”, what with it snowing in April and all. When people argue with pure nonsense, they are unwittingly cleverly defended against arguments.) It’s based on an idea that’s disturbingly prevalent amongst many Christian clans – that there was a period of Christianity, generally chosen to be between the 11th and 16th century, when Christianity was being done right, and thus that becomes “traditional Christianity”. This is of course at a time when Christianity was being used as a banner of war to fight against armies of other colours, against Muslim nations, against any who would not agree to its subjugation. This culminates in the King James Bible, a translation of the Bible used to endorse oppression and used as a weapon of control. This is, of course, the translation used and endorsed by those who campaign for “traditional Christianity”. The “thee”s and the “thou”s today make it sound powerful, frightening, unknowable. It’s “proper”.
(Any who deliberately use ancient dialects to communicate the Gospel have only one intention: to make it inaccessible. In its inaccessibility, they take power. They are in control. Those who wrote the contents of the Bible, whether in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, did so to communicate. It has been updated, corrupted, fixed, re-imagined, mutated, mutilated, and restored countless times, each new generation in each country re-translating it into a form in which people can understand. Like a church that preaches in Latin, those that use the KJV publicly (privately it’s generally to pretentiously boast the value of its poetry) have no desire for communication with those outside. But I digress.)
In Griffin’s statement about the new central role Christianity will play in his party, explaining that all BNP leaflets and information will carry a Christian cross after the election, he dives headfirst into the custard of nonsense that is this mystical version of traditional Christianity. In case there’s any confusion Griffin defines his terms:
“I do not mean the gut-wrenching politically correct quasi-Marxist nonsense spewing forth from the treacherous leaders of the modern Anglican Church. I mean the traditional, upright, decent and honest Christianity that defended Europe from Islamic conquest, the Christianity of the Crusades and the Christianity of our forefathers.”
This isn’t plucked unfairly out of context. Throughout the short piece Griffin exclusively refers to Christianity as something that reaches back as far as the 10th century. He literally talks about its existence as only coming into being at the point it reached Britain.
“No, the Christianity of our forefathers was about honesty, family, patriotism, sacrifice, loyalty, king and country. For over 1,000 years Christianity held our people together and guided us through the centuries. If Christianity had not existed Europe would have been conquered by Islam centuries ago.”
This statement is so broken, so devoid of meaning, so completely unfathomable, that it becomes immediately obvious that Griffin is in no way referring to Christianity. Because if he were, well, he’d be in something of a pickle, wouldn’t he?
For Griffin to espouse these beliefs, he needs to abandon any meaning behind them, because otherwise Christianity is somewhat problematic. It’s (let’s all whisper now) foreign. It’s from one of those… brown countries. Jesus – a name Griffin does not use in his article – he wasn’t white! Not only that – he was a Jew! And the BNP are not big fans of Jews. For Griffin to use the name of Christianity, he has to abandon any notion of Christ. And when it comes to “traditional Christianity”, that’s, well, the version Jesus lived. It’s not a version that very helpfully ties into a belief system that’s about race exclusion, anti-Semitism, and other Nazi values. Hence Griffin’s need to have Christianity begin 1000 years ago, not 2000.
For the BNP, Christianity belongs to these mystical “forefathers”, these heroic figures who saw off the hordes of non-white people from Britain, and, er, their own nations. The Crusades become a time to aspire to, rather than a period of dark shame for those using the name of Christianity.
“The British National Party is the only political organisation in Britain that wants to keep this country fundamentally Christian, with Christian values, traditions and culture.”
What Griffin and the BNP are doing is re-writing the meaning of “Christian”, such that it renders it entirely detached from Christ. A man whom they would not wish to be a member of their own party. A dark-skinned anti-establishment Jew. A politically correct liberal-left quasi-Marxist olive-coloured Semite scoundrel who promoted radical and unquestioning love. The son of God who sacrificed his life for all of humanity in an act of absolute humility. In other words: trouble.
In making such an argument I can now be considered amongst those whom the BNP would label as the “politically correct liberal-left scoundrels”. I find myself in excellent company.
PS. Griffin’s muddled understanding of the faith he wishes to put at the centre of his party might have something to do with this.