Fascist and PA activist Kris ‘Charlie Big Potatoes’ Kearney imprisoned for nearly five years

In the last twenty-four hours, another far-right extremist has been jailed – this time because he thought it appropriate to distribute the manifestos of terrorist groups online.

Kristofer Kearney

Kristofer Thomas Kearney, 38, who is probably better known within the far-right community as “Charlie Big Potatoes” and, until yesterday had an active Telegram account, pleaded guilty in March to two offences of disseminating terrorist publications.

The media are reporting that he is believed to be the first member of far-right group Patriotic Alternative to be convicted of terrorist offences, although it must be mentioned the group are not averse to working alongside those who have, or are later convicted of criminal offences. Last month, James Allchurch — who allegedly suggested a politician’s daughter should be raped was convicted of 10 of 15 counts of distributing material intended to stir up racial hatred via his online radio station, Radio Albion. The material included references to hanging black and Jewish people. Following his conviction PA  offered him their full support and condemned “draconian restrictions on freedom of speech”. Additionally, PA Talk (their nasty ultra-nationalist podcast) previously were happy to broadcast an interview with the far-right extremist and convicted criminal, Blair Cottrell who, among his many ‘achievements’ can boast how he is the former leader of the white supremacist group, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

As for Kearney, the offences relate to two Telegram posts that he distributed on January 23 and March 8, all in  2021. These posts disseminated dozens of documents encouraging extreme right-wing terror attacks, including the manifestos of Christchurch mosque killer Brenton Tarrant and Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 people in Norway. Alongside this, he unashamedly distributed two other far-right manifestos related to Texas Walmart mass killer Patrick Crusius and John Earnest, who killed a Jewish woman and injured three others attending a California synagogue in 2019.

The court heard previously that Kearney told fellow Telegram users Adolf Hitler “showed people the way” and “did nothing wrong” as he shared posts encouraging violence against Jews and Muslims. He also shared a “Punish a Muslim Day” letter, in which readers were encouraged to “butcher a Muslim” for 500 points, remove a woman’s headscarf for 25 points and bomb a mosque for 1,000 points, it has been said.

During 2021, Kearney also posted a numbered list and links to 89 extreme right-wing documents.

An image of Kearney with a National Action flag was also shown to the court, which the defendant said was taken at an anti-grooming gang rally in  Darlington. Although he denied membership, he is known to have been an active member of the neo-Nazi group until a week before it was proscribed.

Kearns seen saluting with members of National Action

In his lacklustre defence, the self-described British fascist said that he was “horrified” to have shared videos which encouraged violence and described some of the phrases used on his channel as little more than a “rallying cry” for people to get involved in community groups. Instead, he argued they were not aimed at promoting violence and denied that his intention was to prompt anyone who saw the material he posted to then go on to seriously injure people or damage property – this is despite that on one occasion alone, he called for people to ‘Butcher a Muslim’.

Kearney told the court the point of setting up his channel was to “spread the right-wing and the fascist world view”.

At the Old Bailey, the court heard how material on Kearney’s Telegram profile did, in fact, depict or encourage violence in the battle against “white genocide”. After a rather long and somewhat tedious trial, Judge Richard Marks KC jailed Kearney for four years and eight months with an extended licence period of two years after finding the defendant ‘legally dangerous’. A notification requirement for a period of 10 years was also ordered.

The judge determined at an earlier trial of issue that Kearney shared the posts both recklessly and with the intention of encouraging terrorism, accepting that he may not have familiarised himself with all of the postings but rejecting the claim that he was completely ignorant of any material involving violence. He told Kearney on Friday:

“In this country, we have lived for many years in a multicultural society which most people regard as being enriching … Right-thinking members of any society regard tolerance, kindness, understanding and inclusivity to everyone regardless of their background as being of absolutely fundamental importance … Much of the material that you posted entirely negates those values and is extreme, vile, inflammatory, divisive and deeply offensive … Whilst I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that your entire agenda and intention was not throughout to encourage acts of terrorism, I conclude from the nature, extent and volume of the material posted that such was your fanaticism in achieving your state of objectives that you were prepared and intended at least in part for that to happen if that is what it took.”

The defendant, who was part of the Army’s parachute regiment for two years, regularly featured on right-wing podcasts called Patriotic Talk and The Absolute State of Britain, and had set up a channel called Fascist Fitness to hand out exercise and fitness tips.

As a result of his incarceration PA now have a vacancy for a new “Head of Fitness” – racists, hooligan and thugs are welcome to send their CV in to Mark Collett, but applicants are advised to use short sentences and single syllable words. Having said this, with the recent splintering of PA and the creation of the new Homeland Party, applicants may wish to consider whether it is worth taking a job with an organisation that will struggle to see out the rest of the year.

Understanding the Dynamics of the Far Right

 In this week's blog posting, I am delighted to re-publish in full an article written in 2020 by the highly respected academic and writer, Professor Paul Jackson that was also published on the website for the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right. My unreserved thanks go to Professor Jackson for his generosity. While we may be at the latter end of the Covid-19 epidemic, many of his thoughts remain highly relevant to our understanding of far right ideology and action.

The extreme right is not a single entity but rather is a highly diverse, polycratic movement set across countless small organizations, or groupuscules.

While this article is not about the extreme right’s responses to COVID-19, thinking about this issue briefly does give us a clear example of what it does focus on: the groupuscular dynamics of the extreme right. Across the globe, myriad extreme-right organizations have been finding ways to capitalize on the coronavirus crisis, from arguing it is a product of Chinese communism to claiming it reveals the inherent weaknesses of liberal democracy to using it as the basis for “proving” conspiracy theories.

In Britain alone, there is already a spectrum of responses, each created separately but also forming, in a way, a collective, extreme-right stance. For example, Nick Griffin has tweeted his strident opposition to the lockdown, and the British National Socialist Movement has been uploading fascist memes to its Telegram page, including one arguing the Nazi salute is the most hygienic form of greeting during this health crisis.

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon aka Tommy Robinson

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, aka Tommy Robinson, has created a video where he confronts a group of men of color after they allegedly coughed at an elderly white couple. There has also been a rise in conspiracy theories alleging that the 5G networks are really responsible for the coronavirus, as espoused by groups such as the Hundred Handers.

The manner in which these and many other nodes within the extreme-right space are making politics separately but around a common theme during this crisis is illustrative of groupuscular dynamics. But what does such an obscure terminology really mean? In sum, this represents a conceptual approach that highlights that the extreme right is not a single entity but rather is a highly diverse, polycratic movement set across countless small organizations, or groupuscules.

Conceptual Toolbox
The terms groupuscule (a small group), groupuscules (a number of small groups) and groupuscular (a dynamic created by small groups) entered into the conceptual toolbox of researchers around 20 years ago. The terms drew on the French word groupuscule, or small political group, and were given greater conceptual focus by Roger Griffin and Jeffrey Bale, among others. They have become a frequent, albeit at times awkward, aspect of the analytical language of extreme-right studies. This language remains useful for thinking about the peculiar dynamics of the extreme right today and in the future.

In 2004, Roger Griffin explained, in an article for the German journal Erwägen Wissen Ethik, that since the end of the Second World War, fascism had adapted. It was akin to slime mold, “a slug-like entity that forms from countless single cells in … conditions of extreme damp … [t]hough it has no central nervous system, it has the mysterious property of forming a brainless, eyeless super-organism that somehow moves purposefully like a mollusc animated by a single consciousness.”

Unpacking this obscure metaphor, Griffin stressed before the Second World War, fascists had been able to generate enough support to become large, impactful organizations, while after 1945, most remained tiny, fragmented, yet in some ways also able to act collectively. While much more marginal, fascists and the wider extreme right had found ways to modify their organizations after 1945 and collectively were more significant than the sum of their parts.
In other articles, Griffin expanded further. In 1999, he developed the concept in a study of the tiny French organization, the Groupe d’Union et de Défense (GDU). Here, he stressed that, though the GDU was tiny, it was crucial to understand the role of this groupuscule in the “circuit board” of the wider French extreme right, which was able to function in a more potent way due to the GDU’s presence. In another article from 2003, Griffin defined groupuscules as a “small political (frequently meta-political, but never primarily party-political) entities formed to pursue palingenetic (i.e. revolutionary) ideological, organizational or activist ends with an ultimate goal of overcoming the decadence of the existing liberal democratic system.”

This key article set out some further definitional features. It distinguished between “monocratic” and “polycratic” movements, highlighting the extreme right was usually polycratic in nature. Monocratic movements were cohesive and relatively coherent phenomena, while polycratic movements were much more diverse, made up of many competing and contrary parts and so lacked clear, singular leadership.

To help flesh out the theme, he reflected on the distinction set out by poststructuralist philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari between arboreal and rhizomic structures. Arboreal structures resemble trees, with a taproot, a main trunk and smaller branches reaching out to form a wider canopy. In a way, mass political parties chime with this dynamic. Rhizomic structures are true grassroots networks and lack a single taproot. They form messy, tangled networks, lacking clear beginnings and ends, like the roots of grass.

For Griffin, this distinction was crucial. Monocratic, arboreal organizations could emerge from rhizomic, groupuscular networks. For example, in interwar Germany, the NSDAP was a singular (monocratic, arboreal) mass party that grew from the more amorphous (polycratic, rhizomic) Völkish movement. The extreme-right networks that developed after the Second World War that have been far more marginalized have remained largely rhizomic. They not only lack a strong, singular organizational structure but also some at least thrive without this.

Central Characteristics
In the early 2000s, networks such as the neo-Nazi Blood & Honour movement exemplified the tendency. Set across multiple discrete groups and found in many European countries as well as developing competing divisions in America, Blood & Honour epitomized the decentralized, rhizomic, polycratic nature of much of the extreme right. The Christian Identity movement was another clear case in point for Griffin. Again, this was a movement set across a range of “churches,” each with differing interpretations of the Christian Identity faith.

Other scholars picked up on Griffin’s core assertions. Jeffrey Bale highlighted there could be four central characteristics that extreme-right groupuscules developed: political parties, as they sought wider support; pressure groups, as they could attempt to influence the political process using direct action; terrorist organizations, as they were political and violent; and armies, as they incorporated paramilitary aspects and drew on a culture of discipline. Bale stressed that groupuscular cultures were not static either and changed dramatically over time. Individual organizations came and went, but the groupuscular dynamic meant the movement could adapt to changing conductions to survive.

Bonnie Berstow focused on the Canadian organization the Heritage Front, which she argued developed over time into an increasingly groupuscular structure, moving away from being a larger more arboreal style organization. She noted how it could find advantages by adapting to a smaller size. This allowed its political messages to become more ambiguous, incorporating a range of seemingly incompatible views, from the endorsement of Christian Identity ideas to the promotion of the anti-Christian World Church of the Creator. She also argued being smaller helped it outmanoeuvre attempts by the state and antifascists to limit its activities.

Picking up on this theme of the benefits of groupuscularity, Fabien Virchow studied the German Freie Kameradschaften movement through this type of conceptual modeling. Focusing on Aktionsbüro Norddeutschland, he stressed that the rhizomic nature of this movement allowed it to develop a range of cells that could offer different ideas to different audiences, from elements steeped in the ideas of Julius Evola to others based around white-power music. The network could develop different components that could attract people from different classes and ages. Moreover, because it was not grounded in a single arboreal structure, if one small element disbanded, there were always other places for those attracted to the movement to go. And finally, he concluded that “the fact that the movement consists of a great number of mostly small or even virtual groups with little or no formal hierarchy or rigid organizational matrix makes it practically unbannable.”

To highlight just some of the others who have used the framework since these early discussions, Graham Macklin has drawn on the concept to explore the ideas and networks developed by Troy Southgate. Kevin Coogan used the terms for assessing the history of the early postwar fascist group the European Liberation Front. Mari-Liis Madisson and Andreas Ventsel have drawn on this vocabulary to critically assess Estonian extreme right groups, and Markus Mathyl has developed the terminology to examine the dynamics of Russian organizations such as the National Bolshevik Party.

Groupuscular Dynamics
What helps to unite all these and other critical engagements with the groupuscular dynamics of the extreme right is stressing the point that understanding these small groups and their networks is vital. Individually, they may be tiny and of little consequence, but many seemingly insignificant groups interact and work collectively to create, maintain and develop anew the overall extreme-right milieu. Groupuscules are not trying to be mass parties or large organizations and instead revel in the amorphous dynamics found within the networks their collective activities generate. They are often savvy to the benefits of being small, even unnoticed. Their importance usually only becomes more obvious when such small groups — perhaps with just a handful of activists — pose a clear security threat.

In his article from 2003, Griffin concluded that in the future the extreme right could become ever more entrenched through rhizomic networks of small groups. Each would advocate its own variant of cultural, racial or national “purity,” while collectively they would attack the liberal, global order. For Griffin, this “dark matter” on the fringes of liberal democracy would mean “the centre of gravity of western democracies stays firmly on the right, an invisible counterweight to visions of a shared humanity and social justice for all.”

This seems a fairly accurate projection of the ways extreme right networks have developed. These now include, among others, counter-jihad activists, the neo-Nazi extreme right, the more ambiguous and amorphous alt-right, its less extreme variant the alt-light, the more philosophical Traditionalists and wider variants of Identiarians. Each is spread across various organizations and has developed complex networks using online tools. Whether the coronavirus crisis can provide opportunities for any of these overlapping polycratic networks to generate groups that can move beyond the rhizomic fringes of being groupuscular and develop a larger arboreal presence remains to be seen.

Dr Paul Jackson is Professor in the History of Radicalism & Extremism within the Faculty of Arts, Science and Technology at the University of Northampton

Are Far-Right groups like Britain First really fascist - Do they satisfy a fascist minimum?

It is abundantly clear that despite the best efforts of anti-fascist groups, far-right extremism in the UK continues to prosper, albeit that electorally their performance in recent years can only be described as abysmal. This is not to say to suggest they do not have a small, but dedicated group of ‘, but despite this they remain unable to achieve any noticeable in-roads towards gaining power.

 Even a simple analysis reveals how their membership has been fluid over the years and people who were once members of the National Front chose to move on to the British National Party as it declined, then, as that also failed they found new homes in ‘Britain First’. ‘Patriotic Action’, ‘British Democrats’ or the recently formed ‘Homeland Party, or within extra-Parliamentary organisations such as ‘Casuals United’, the ‘Football Lads Alliance’, ‘North West Infidels’ or ‘Generation Identity’. This is to name only a few of the dozens of options available to them as the far-right movement generally is so badly fractured that it is often impossible to keep up with the creation and dissolution of groups as they rise and fall.

 Most of these are often labelled online as ‘fascist’, although the popular press tends to be more circumspect and prefers to refer to them as ‘far-right’, probably taking a more cautious route, not because of some desire for accurate use of terminology, but from fear of possible litigation.

 

“Fascist thugs from Britain First were lambasted today for storming a Midlands hotel that was temporarily housing refugees and directing a torrent of abuse at terrified residents.”

(Morning Star Online).

 

“Patriotic Alternative (PA) is a British far-right, fascist, neo-Nazi and white nationalist hate group which states that it has active branches nationwide.”

(Wikipedia).

 

“A shadowy neo-Nazi mob which wants to remove all non-white people from the UK has been organising outdoor gatherings in the Scottish countryside. Patriotic Alternative staged an event last week, bragging online that it was operating in defiance of lockdown rules.”

(Daily Record Online accessed 13^th June, 2023).

 Equally, anti-fascist organisations are happy to bandy the term ‘fascist’ when referring to far-right movements. Take the following:

“In 2021, Patriotic Alternative (PA) consolidated its place as the dominant force in UK fascist politics.” (‘State of Hate Report, 2022 – Hope not Hate)

 

“No surprise but despicable that fascist Britain First head goon, Paul Golding, posts such inflammatory bile ….” (Unite Against Fascism – Twitter account)

 

Few would argue that many of these far-right groups are annoying, a nuisance, and in some cases dangerous, but this does not answer the question of whether these groups are actually. In fact, most of these groups go out of their way to deny any links with fascism and instead try to present themselves as patriots and fervent supporters of the democratic process.

 

“Britain First is a movement of patriotism, nationalism, conservatism and traditionalism.

We reject the false, misleading and outdated labels of ‘right-wing’ or ‘left-wing’ ... We fight for traditional moral values, for genuine representative democracy, for a patriotic revolution in national priorities and the promotion of our indigenous British history, culture, traditions and customs.”

(Britain First website accessed 12^th June, 2023)

While Britain First use this argument to counter accusations of any links to fascism, it is worth noting that it was Paxton (20040 who argued this response to the Right-Left political map was also rejected by fascist movements, who argued their policies and actions made it obsolete as they transcended such outdated divisions. Given this, the attempt by Britain First to extricate itself from being linked to fascist ideology must be seen as weak.

 

Paul Golding

Leader of Britain First

Other far-right groups have attempted to rid themselves of any association with fascist ideology:

 

“The BNP exists to give the British people that choice, and thus to restore and defend the basic democratic rights we have all been denied. We favour more democracy, not less, at national, regional and local levels.”

(British National Party website accessed 12^th June, 2023)

 

“We are committed to government of the people, by the people, for the people. Those with power to affect our way of life must be answerable to the people. Democracy is much more than the ability to choose, from time to time, between broadly similar parties which compete amongst themselves for power. Real democracy is measured by the ability of the people to manage their political, economic, physical, and cultural environment.”

(English Democrats website accessed 12^th June, 2023)

What is clear from their propaganda is that these parties and movements want to appear as though they are willing to operate within and continue to maintain a liberal democracy with Parliament and the rule of law as its head. Of course, this has never been tested as none of them have achieved sufficient electoral success to achieve power.

However, even though they indicate a willingness to operate with a democratic system this does not mean these groups may not be fascist. After all, both Hitler and Mussolini during their early years campaigned politically within a liberal democratic system and once they had achieved some representation within it, each used their association with other conservative forces to ultimately achieve power. It was only then that both fascist leaders implemented laws that eliminated democracy and the supremacy of parliament.

Furthermore, few theorists see the denial of liberal democracy as the essence of a fascist minimum, if indeed such a phenomenon exists. After all, it was Rauschning (1938) who argued that fascism lacks any clear ideological base other than a commitment to nihilistic violence. On the other hand, Kitchen argued that fascist ideology was characterised by irrational concepts such as authority, obedience, honour, duty, the fatherland, or race (Kitchen, 1976).

Undoubtedly there is evidence of these elements in early National Front propaganda, particularly while under the leadership of John Tyndall. His commitment to fascism and National Socialism was made explicit when he joined Colin Jordan in the National Socialist Movement and while they had personal and political agreements, There can be little doubt of how Tyndall hero worshipped Adolf Hitler and saw in the political behaviour of Nazism a way for him to achieve power in this country. Speaking at a meeting at NSM Headquarters shortly before his departure, Tyndall said:

 “Hitler roped in the riff-raff and put them in camps. Some of them may have died from starvation, but there was a food shortage ... We want to see the whole democratic regime come crashing down ... we shall get power with whatever means are favourable ... the Conservatives are degenerate, the greatest betrayers of our nation, utterly decadent.”

(cited in Walker, M. 1977 p.68)

Further inspection of his later writings soon reveals that fundamentally he remained committed to those same fascist values and beliefs throughout his life (see Tyndall, 1988)

In order to understand the nature of modern far-right politics and determine whether they are indeed ‘fascist’ it becomes critical to identify whether any of these groups or parties satisfy a ‘fascist minimum’. In other words, the minimum conditions that a certain political movement must meet in order to be considered "fascist".                                                                                                               

In many of the more recent far-right parties like For Britain, Britain First and the recently formed Homeland party the notion of a ‘fascist minimum’ is unclear, especially as opinion is divided on what it is and what are its constituent parts. For example, Nolte (1968) argued some of the more common aspects found within fascist groups that may be deemed a fascist minimum include:

•  NationalismMilitarism
•  Imperialism
•  Corporatism
•  Violence

 While Milza (1987) suggested a four-stage model that included:

 ·  Authoritarianis

 ·  Nationalism

 ·  Militarism

 ·  Hierarchy and elitism

 While violence is a common theme among many far-right groups as has been seen recently at some of the demonstrations outside asylum seeker hostels, it is not universal. Certainly, post-war far-right politics has had a strong association with violent Behaviour as has been since in their links to Combat 18, Column 88, North West Infidels and, of course, National Action. 

Additionally, few of the established far-right groups show evidence of any commitment to militarism (excluding small fringe groups like the New British Union), imperialism or corporatism. Indeed, the latter has (with the exception of early National Front propaganda) largely been dropped from the agenda of most far-right groups.

 Against this, nationalism (or indeed ultra-nationalism) – a key defining aspect of fascism (Griffin, 1991) remains an important mainstay of most far-right thought. Indeed it is within the parameters of nationalism that we may see answers as to whether these political movements are, in fact fascist. Eatwell (1992) argued that nationalism is crucial to fascism and analysis of the political ideology of most 21^st century far-right groups reveals how it is also central to all of their political platforms.

 

“The BNP will protect our unique and precious British identity from Mass Immigration, multi-culturalism, health’n’safety killjoys and globalisation.”

(British National Party Ibid.)

 

“Britain First is committed to the maintenance of British national sovereignty, independence and freedom. Our people must enjoy full self-determination, free from the interference and meddling of foreign organisations …”

(Britain First. Ibid)

 However, this notion of ‘nationalism’ has been interpreted by the far-right, like it was for various fascism movements throughout Europe in at least two ways. For some, it symbolises something that has already existed, a return to earlier values and traditions. For others it has a more radical/ revolutionary theme where there is a need for the nation, with the party as its political vanguard to create something new out of the ashes of the old.

 It is within the latter that we see aspects of Patriotic Alternative’s (PA) approach to nationalism when they call for a ‘New Britain’ and their aim to create:

• Physical communities in geographical terms where patriots are living in close proximity to one another;
• Community activists in positions of influence in neighbourhoods
•  A nation where no immigrant-descended person should ever be allowed to take decisions regarding the ethnic composition of the UK

For PA, as with some other far-right groups, nationalism means a revolutionary rebirth of the state where laws would be created to make it free from mass immigration and where those of immigrant descent, even though they have British citizenship, would have no right to take part in any decision making process with the ‘democracy’ they would create.

 This type of approach (referred to by Griffin as palingenetic ultra-nationalism) demands a “… populist drive towards mobilising the energies of all those considered authentic members of the national community …” (Griffin, 2012 p. 6).

Mark Collett - Leader of Patriotic Alternative

with his ex-girlfriend

It is not difficult to see that in many ways the recent anti-immigration campaigns organised by groups like Britain First, Homeland Party and Patriotic Alternative are part of this revolutionary mobilisation and are aimed at creating a mass movement that would challenge the current political system and is motivated by a set of ‘mobilising passions’  (Paxton, 2004) that include:

 

Paxton’s Mobilising passions	21st Century far-right groups response
A sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of ordinary solutions	Evidence of unabated mass immigration resulting in a loss of nationhood and culture
The primacy of the group towards which one has duties superior to every other right	Ultra-patriotism and nationalism establishing the supremacy of the British people
The belief that one’s group is a victim	During 47 years of membership of the EU, British nationalism was eroded. Add to that the impact of international bodies (UN, European Court of Justice etc) unabated immigration, and the decline of ‘law and order,
Dread of the group’s decline under the effects of liberalism and alien influence	The two-party system and the electoral system have facilitated the deterioration of British identity
The need for clear integration of a purer community	Mass repatriation of all immigrants/ non-British citizens

Within this analysis there are certain failings that fail to establish whether the fascist minimum has been realised when aimed at modern far-right groups. In particular, Paxton’s thesis assumes a fascist movement is led by a charismatic, or natural leader who is capable of understanding and achieving goals that will secure the advance of the British people. However, what we see in the present leaderships is a largely narcissistic, unskilled hierarchy with a lack of direction or purpose. Unlike the ‘ideal type’ of fascist natural leader their government is essentially reactive rather than active.

 As an example of this, Mark Collett’s empire in Patriotic Alternative is collapsing as more members haemorrhage from the party and turn to Kenny Smith’s new Homeland party. Meanwhile, Paul Golding continues to oversee Britain First and looks likely to fill the void created by the demise of both the British National Party and the National Front. Despite this, his position is not secure as he has a history of violence and criminal convictions, so one has to wonder whether he will face any future ‘holidays’ at His Majesty’s pleasure. In broad political terms the party has a miniscule membership and with evidence reported by HOPE not Hate of the party scamming supporters for money his tenure as leader many be coming to an end. .

National Front in Action

The early successes of British fascism in the 1930s were held in part by the poor economic position of this country (something that seems unlikely to be repeated) and the presence of a charismatic fascist leader in Oswald Mosley, who could attract huge crowds, some of whom would go on to support him for the rest of their lives. Mosley, and many of the fascist leaders of that time were politically astute, experienced and talented orators as well as skilled writers who could deliver cogent (albeit distasteful) political solutions. The present cohort of far-right leaders in this country (thankfully) are unable to offer any of those skills and as such are unlikely to ever achieve any political, or electoral success.

 What is more clear is that this country appears to have moved into an era of post-fascism where many of the old ground rules that could be applied so readily to parties like the British Union of Fascist or the Imperial Fascist League no longer apply. The Public Order Act no longer allows political parties to parade in militaristic style uniforms and indeed, it is questionable as to whether the electorate would welcome such a display if it were presented. While the war and memories of Nazism fade into history and despite awareness of the Holocaust declining year by year, the ongoing battle between antifascists and the far-right shows there remains an underlying disquiet amongst people regarding a re-emergence of fascism and Nazism.

 Furthermore, since the war there has never been any sign of a charismatic ‘fuhrer’ emerging from within the far-right. It could be argued that for a very short time, Nick Griffin offered them some hope but despite his re-emergence with groups like Liberty Defenders and the British Freedom Party, his own bankruptcy and political ineptitude became his ultimate downfall.

 Add to that the fact that modern Conservativism and the Radical Right have ‘stolen’ some of the core beliefs previously held exclusively by the far-right. Historically, some Tory MPs have unashamedly retweeted Tommy Robinson, include Bob Blackman and Nadine Dorries and Tom Hunt, MP for Ipswich, was accused last year of fuelling racism after appearing to blame crime in his constituency on “certain communities”.

 More recently, Suella Braverman’s approach to dealing with asylum seekers is something that thirty years ago would have sat well within the far-right political play book. There is nothing new in this approach – while publically uncomfortable with his analysis there was considerable private support within the Conservative for Enoch Powell and his attitude towards immigration. While the majority of the Conservative party distance themselves from the ‘Great Replacement Theory’, there are many MPs who, in their speeches are not far removed from current far-right thinking. In doing this, they have effectively normalised anti-immigration and, in so doing, indirectly taken the powder out of the far-right’s guns.

In all this, what becomes clear is that the far-right have been forced to ‘cherry pick’ aspects of fascism so that instead of presenting themselves as unashamed fascists in the traditional sense, they have been forced to present an image that is socially acceptable.

 Conclusion,

If fascism is little more than revolutionary ultra-nationalism with the aim of creating a national rebirth then it is not difficult to argue that many of Britain’s far-right groups are fascist. However, it is quite clear that fascism, or indeed fascisms are far more complicated and are comprised of many different elements, some of which were easier to see in historical fascism than in current far-right groups. In part this is because some of those elements (militarism) are prohibited by law, while others (superiority of the natural leader) have never presented themselves to any of the existing movements.

 Add to this the realisation amongst members of the far-right of the necessity to work within a liberal democratic system and with it came the realisation that a manifesto burdened with promoting an authoritarian or corporate state would fail to achieve any kind of mandate.

 With all this in mind we must conclude that in broad terms, most of the existing far-right groups like Britain First and Patriotic Alternative cannot be described as ‘fascist’ within the traditional meaning of the word, or when compared with historical fascist parties. However, if we see post-war fascism has, of necessity evolved into something new then it changes things. What then becomes evident is there are some elements of fascist ideology present in modern far-right thought, but equally others, like the refutation of liberal democracy that have been dismissed.

Despite this, I think it is reasonable to say there is sufficient evidence to argue that most of far-right groups are, at least for the most part, fascistic (in the traditional sense of the word) and simply because they have never discovered a ‘natural leader’ does not mean they would not embrace one should he appear. Given this, we must assume this element cannot be denied, but can only be described as untested.

 What we do know is that all political parties often change direction and it is therefore not inconceivable that any, or indeed all, of these groups might renege on their commitment to the democratic principle. Indeed historical evidence has shown how this has happened in the past (for example the Patriotic Party in the 1960s  that originally described themselves as ‘True Tories’ then went on to commit to traditional extreme right-wing politics).

 With all this at the front of our thought, we can only conclude that many of the existing far-right parties should be seen as fascist in principle, if not in practice

 REFERENCES:

Britain First website https://www.britainfirst.org/ accessed 12^th June, 2023

British National Party website https://bnp.org.uk/policies/british-culture/ accessed 12^th June, 2023

Eatwell (1992)Towards a new model of generic Fascism. Journal of Theoretical Politics. 4(2) 161-194

Griffin, R. (1991) The Nature of Fascism London. Pinter. Journal of Comparative Fascist Studies 1(1) p. 1-17

Griffin, R. (2012) Studying fascism in a post-fascist age: from New Consensus to new wave.

Kitchen, M. (1977 Fascism. London, Macmillan.

Milza, P. |(1987) Fascisme francaise: pásse et present Flammarion. Paris

Nolte, E. (1969) Three Faces of Fascism. New York. Mentor

Paxton, R.O. (2004) The Anatomy of Fascism. London. Penguin

Rauschning, H. (1938) Die revolution des Nihilismus. Zurich. Europa Verlag.

Tyndall,  J.(1988) The Eleventh Hour: A Call for British Rebirth. London: Albion Press.

Walker, M. (1977) The National Front. London. Fontana

What is Fascism?

Most of us have heard people accusing politicians of being ‘fascists’ or ‘Nazis’, but what do we really mean? Is it a legitimate accusation, or is it just another term we throw out with the intention of offending or labelling.

 Well quite clearly some of these accusations do not stand the test of analysis if we carefully analyse what we mean by the term ‘fascist’ or ‘fascism’.

 Opponents of fascism usually tend to categorise it as a ‘far right ideology, yet this is something that adherents would violently oppose. Indeed, Paxton (2004 p.) has argued:

“The ultimate fascist response to the Right-Left political map was to claim that they had made it obsolete by being ‘neither Right nor Left’, transcending such outdated divisions and uniting the nation.”

 

Furthermore, Jackson (2018) complicated matters even further by pointing out how any defining fascism is inexorably obfuscated by the fact that any interpretation will be tainted by the analysts own worldview. Thus, for example, a Marxist might see fascism as a creation of modernity that identified how capitalism was in a state of crisis and offered a violent response to fend off a true workers’ revolution. Alternatively, psychologists have argued fascism is either an adolescent rebellion (Erikson) or an alienation of man in the modern world (Fromm).

 

	British Union of Fascists	PNF – Italian Fascist Party	Swastika – symbol of the NSDAP – Nazi Party (Germany
Symbols of Fascist Organisations

 While interesting, none of this fully explains what is fascism and what underpins it ideologically. In an attempt to address this, Paxton (1998) argued several mobilising passions needed to be present for a movement to be described as ‘fascist’. These included:

• The primacy of the group toward which one has duties, superior to every right whether universal or individual;
• The belief that one’s group is a victim and that action again those enemies (both internal and external is justified);
•  A dread that because of liberalism, one’s group is sliding into a state of decadence;
• Closer integration of the group into a ‘brotherhood’ to protect its purity is critical even if this includes exclusionary violence;
• The authority of natural chiefs (always male) culminating in a national leader who will guide the group’s identity;
• The beauty of violence when it is devoted to the success of the group in a Darwinian struggle.

 Meanwhile, Finchelstein (2008) argued:

“Fascism is a political ideology that encompassed totalitarianism, state terrorism, imperialism, racism and, in the German case, the most radical genocide of the last century: the Holocaust.”

 While Griffin saw fascism as:

“Fascism should be seen as a revolutionary form of nationalism guided by the myth of the imminent rebirth of the nation in decadence.” 

 Other theorists have seen it as an expression of lower middle-class resentments (Lipset, 1963) while a multitude of observers have seen fascism as a sub-species of totalitarianism.

Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists

Clearly, we can see from all this there is no universal agreement on what is meant by the term. However, for our purposes and for future understanding of all posts that will follow in this blog, the following elements will generally be assumed to exist within the ideology of what is generally termed ‘fascism’. While far from definitive, it offers a starting point for future discussion:

1. A closed ideological system that places the state and the nation at the centre of all human life;
2. A rejection of political and cultural liberalism;
3. Opposition to the democratic process including parliamentary democracy;
4.  A total opposition to Marxist/ Communist ideology;
5. A belief in the notion of the Corporate State as defined by Gentile and Mussolini;
6. Totalitarian or authoritarian ambition;
7. The leader principle - the belief that the party and the state should have a single leader with absolute power;
8. Mass mobilisation of the population;
9. The creation of “the new man” - transforming the ordinary man into the “new man,” a “virile” being who would put decadent bourgeoisie, cerebral Marxists, and “feminine” liberals to shame;
10. A sense of victimhood - despite claims of superiority, fascists tends to claim the nation group has been victimized by others;
11. Ultra-nationalism that seeks to expand the nation's influence and power;
12. Racial scapegoating - exclusion of certain groups, often through violence;
13. Sexism and misogyny - women are urged to perform their traditional gender roles as wives and mothers and to bear many children for the nation;
14. Anti-intellectualism;

 What does this mean?

Even a superficial reading of the above clearly shows that the term “fascism” is frequently misused and often reduced to a term of abuse. The trouble with this approach is that it leads to a dead end. If we allow this continue, where does it lead and, more importantly, what terms can we then adopt when we need to actually describe genuine fascist movements. Indeed, in the coming weeks, I will hopefully demonstrate that in the last thirty years, we often describe extreme, or far right groups as ‘fascist’, when in fact they may be nothing of the sort, even though many of their views may be repugnant to decent minded people.

 Anyway, I hope you enjoyed this post and do feel free to comment. In the meantime, have a great weekend.

 

References:

Finchelstein, F.  (2008) On Fascist Ideology Constellations. 15(3) 320 – 331

Griffin, R. (2002) Cruces gamadas y caminos bifurcados: las dinámicas fascistas del Tercer Reich” in Mellón, J.A. (ed.): Orden, Jerarquía y Comunidad. Fascismos, Dictaduras y  Postfascismos en la Europa Contemporánea, Madrid, Tecnos, p.103-149.

Jackson, P. 2018) Colin Jordan and Britain’s Neo-Nazi Movement – Hitler’s Echo. Bloomsbury, London.

Lipset, S.M. (1963) Political Man. Doubleday. New York

Paxton, R.O. (1998) The five stages of Fascism. Journal of Modern History. 70(1) 1 – 23.

Paxton, R.O (2004) The Anatomy of Fascism. Penguin. London