British politics in a nutshell and the utility of the good.

British politics in a nutshell and the utility of the good.
Commenter KO makes some trenchant observations on Labour, the Conservatives, and the British National Party in the U.K. in response to an article that argues that anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist, anti-semitic and neo-Nazi rhetoric “plays into the hands of the enemies of democracy” anywhere they can be found:

But is it fair to lump in the BNP with your other examples of mounting fascism? Apart from outliers whose significance is greatly exaggerated by political enemies, aren't BNP supporters mostly ordinary, common-sensical folks who have realized that Labour and the Tories have given away their country? Isn't the BNP the only party that seeks to protect the people by preserving their sovereignty and by limiting immigration to a rational, self-preserving level? The BNP is disappointing in some ways, but who else is lifting a finger to save Britain? There is nothing fascistic about the BNP, or, if harsh, unfriendly scrutiny can identify fascistic aspects of the BNP, such aspects are inherent to our contemporary political culture and are infinitely less menacing and destructive to the people than the fascistic aspects of Labour and the Tories themselves (e.g., their unwillingness to engage in the free, open, and rational debate that is essential to deliberative self-government, the fostering of unlimited centralized power, the elimination of social and governmental checks and balances, the imposition of forced ideological conformity) . Let's give patriotism a chance! Or to speak more conservatively, let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good.

It should come as no surprise to patriots that any who attempt to speak for preservation of the nation and its native, dominant (superior) culture will be viciously attacked as such people are the greatest threat to the perverse doctrine of multiculturalism and its kissin’ cousins diversity, radical non-discrimination, globalism, and Thoughtcrimeism.

The Tactic, it might be called, has been since WWII, at least, to characterize any expression of patriotism, nationalism, or nativism, however modest, natural, and logical, as a manifestation of a malignant heart LIKE THE NAZIS. The left’s branding someone a “fascist” is deliberately squishy and signifies only, as Orwell realized, a bully or a thug whose animal instincts can find expression only in violence. This usage deflects a salutary examination of what fascism really is, namely, private property in name only with the controlling hand always that of the total state. The leftist nature of fascism, it’s being but a tippy toe away from full blown totalitarianism, is something to be concealed at all costs.

As Max Eastman, a former Trotskyite, observed, there is only Red Fascism or Black Fascism. Whether you’re being herded into a box car for transport to a labor camp for immediate or delayed extermination, is it really any solace to realize that you’re not being killed off because of your religion but rather because of your class?

Mr. or Ms. Millar makes the mistake of adopting the erroneous “fascist as bully” approach in his article (although wholly without malignant intent). I’m also not comfortable with Millar’s use of the terms “neo-fascist,” “paleocon,” “neocon,” “neo-Nazi,” or “extremist,” and I leave it to the reader to decide whether the persons and entities named have been accurately characterized as one or the other of these.

However, his basic point about anti-Zionism or anti-semitism being a dangerous indulgence when it leads to support for tyranny is well taken. While there is a healthy nationalism there are variants, such as “blood and soil” nationalism, may not be. Those “nationalists” aren’t at all reliable allies in the fight for liberty and limited government, the "what comes after" blood and soil not generally entailing parliamentary democracy and free speech and markets.

Disproportionate Jewish support for the Democrat Party is one thing that personally gives me some heartburn, especially as that party has clearly been captured by progressivism, which is no friend to liberty. Or Israel, let it be said. Perhaps Jews who can’t get enough of socialism and our new president’s determination to “stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction” will reconsider that support. As Dr. Phil likes to say, “How’s that working for you?” Reconsideration won't come any time soon, I dare say, but stranger things have happened.

Be that as it may, the rush to anti-semitism is a sure fire formula for proving you’re an ass and Millar is quite right that one cannot choose liberty and tyranny for long. The Bolsheviks had plenty of Jews in their ranks at the outset but the former were more than happy to kill off not a few Jews when it suited them. And, as the History Channel occasionally reminds us, quite a few Jews were killed off by the National Socialists a bit further to the west.

We’re all in this fight against a despicable despotism together, and cheap alliances and blindness to harsh realities will avail us naught. Neither Christian, Jew, liberal, neocon, or gay activist, inter alia, has any interest in the extinction of free speech and the mindless celebration of diversity. Diversity is a rationalization for cowardice and surrender and our individual ethnic, religious, or cultural deficiencies are irrelevant when the pursuit of perfection is not what we can afford to be about.

"'Rightwing' Extremism and Islamofascism." By A. Millar, Brussels Journal, 10/10/09 (emphasis added).