Nick Griffin

I don't understand this guy at all. He's obviously intelligent yet chooses to align himself with a bunch of irrational, hate-mongering Neanderthals. It makes no sense. I can only assume he had some traumatic experience in early childhood which led him down this worthless, mean-spirited, anti-social path. If all the energy he put into stirring up trouble and stoking up hatred, was invested in trying to bring communities together and foster understanding between them, he would be far more effective in helping to reduce the problems that so trouble him. Basically, when someone of his level of intelligence latches on to a party like the BNP, it has to be due to some form of mental illness.

It's worrying when someone of his inteligence gets involved in all this. Let's have it right, Hitler couldn't have been a stupid man, hoodwinked a lot of people on many of the same issues old swivel eyed Griffin is concentrating on. nobody

"but because ....... had expressed them so powerfully and authoritatively - and convincingly. That's the thing about these people - the power they have to manipulate and persuade with rhetoric, and how they can always drum up 'facts' to support their arguments. It's not difficult to see why so many people get swept along by them" isn't it weird? You could be talking about Blair.

Why would you assume that someone intelligent and well-educated couldn't be a racist? There is nothing about either condition that guarantees you wouldn't be. It's also a fairly established mistake to assume that, because you can't see the motivation of another person, they must have a mental illness, or be otherwise beyond and removed from rationality. There are some highly intelligent, highly educated racists and some less intelligent, less well educated anti racists. So...? I think that every side in this would see themselves as the ones closer to reason, rationality and enlightenment. Intelligent people are capable of thinking things that others feel to be wrong. I think you always have to be careful of discounting the intelligence of your enemy or adversary. Our side presents data or research, their side 'drums up facts'. We open people's eyes to reality, they "manipulate and persuade with rhetoric'. Refute the argument, don't belittle the arguer. Cheers, Mark

Mark You say "Refute the argument . . ." With the greatest of respect that is a strange thing to suggest on a forum like this. As far as I am aware, everyone here is against racism, everyone here knows the arguments against racism, and no one is making the case for racism. What would be the point of refuting an argument that no one is making. My comment about racism and intelligence is I feel a legitimate one, not least because I speak from personal experience. As a British Asian I and my family have been the victims of a (thankfully) small amount of racial abuse, and in every case that I can recall the people delivering the insults have been of limited intelligence. In today's world where intelligent people are also generally well informed people, it seems to me that holding racist views and being intelligent must be incompatible. I guess it depends how you define intelligent. But one aspect of being intelligent for me would be that by default you have the sensitivity and perceptiveness to recognise the futility and stupidity of championing racist causes. That then leaves us with the question of how you explain it when apparently intelligent people are racist. Since racism is so irrational, the only conclusion I can reach is that the intelligent racist must have suffered some kind of trauma in childhood or must be suffering from some form of mental illness. If you disagree, why not offer another explanation.

Racism might be irrational - it depends on where you start from - but it's also a natural human instinct. It's entirely natural to be scared of people who are different from yourself and to create or subscribe a system of values that help to excuse that fear - and project in on to the group(s) of people that you're scared of. Intelligent people are no more or less human than less-intelligent people so are just as susceptible to being racists. They're just likely to justify and represent their positions in more complicated ways than less intelligent people. "As a British Asian I and my family have been the victims of (thankfully) a small amount of racial abuse, and in every case that I can recall the people delivering the insults have been of limited intelligence." Well, yeah, because the intelligent racists haven't been shouting at you in the street, they've been working in more subtle but more effective ways to prevent you from achieving a position of economic and social power.

Brooce, who else's experience are you going to speak from? I used to think, when younger, that all of the things that I thought were unpleasant about human nature would eventually be recognised and classified as forms of mental disorder. Selfishness, greed, sexism, intolerance, all would be seen as aberrations or perversions of natural human conduct. l Then, in turn, I thought that once so recognised they would be treated and cured, ushering in a hitherto unheralded age of human enlightenment, peace and prosperity. As I got older, I realised that this a) wasn't going to happen and b) probably wouldn't be a great thing anyway. I tend to think that all of us start from a position of sheer selfishness and intolerance that is then socialised out of us. Rather than being angelic, I think kids are cruel and egocentric. It's what's around us that shapes us into what we are, thus it's civilisation that saves us from being unpleasant and destructive. Whether we like it or not, racism has a very long and very prestigious history, both intellectual and physical. Nick Griffin and others like him are not without historical precedent. I think that the way that he thinks and what he recognises to be true and important are wrong, but I don't think that they are the production of a disordered mind. Anti-racism in the English speaking world is only in its infancy. I think that anti-racism represents progress, but that's only my own prejudice. I think it's further down the path of civilisation, a stage on from racism, but as I say that's my opinion. Racism in of the Griffin mode in modern Britain, for me, is a throwback, a wishing for a world that's gone. A kind of virulent nostalgia, it sets up a false past that has been strayed from, and identifies certain groups of people as the ones who have caused it. It is, of course, a fairly familiar formula if you've any familiarity with history. As is the case with any form of conviction, you decide which things are most important to you, and which you can discard and ignore. We all do it. I, for instance, am far less worried about unhappy rich people than unhappy poor people. I have, in essence, put my feelings for people with less above my feelings for those who have more. All are human beings, yet I feel less for one group than another. Racism is extremely similar to this. Someone decides that they are more for one group (their own race) than other groups. In extremes, to get around the knowledge that we're all people, this involves making other groups into something other than people, or doing other mental gymnastics to justify why these other people should be treated differently. We're still only at the beginning of recognising all of the areas of life where this kind of thinking occurs. Cheers, Mark

Buk "the intelligent racists haven't been shouting at you in the street, they've been working in more subtle but more effective ways to prevent you from achieving a position of economic and social power." How on earth would you know what position of economic and social power I have achieved? I happen to think I have achieved a level of economic and social power that is about right for my (somewhat low) level of ability. I do not think I have been in any way held back by some shadowy conspiracy of intellectual racists responding negatively to my ethnicity. Indeed in at least a couple of cases I think the system worked in my favour to advance me beyond what I probably deserved.

"Brooce, who else's experience are you going to speak from?" I could speak from: my neighbour's experience my best mate's experience my colleague's experience my old school friend's experience my hairdresser's experience my taxi driver's experience my plumber's experience my window cleaner's experience the man in the pub who I was talking to last night's experience etc etc

Mark Right at the end of your very interesting and well argued post you use the phrase "mental gymnastics". That is your phrase for it and you are of course entitled to label what is happening in your own way. However, my label for it is mental illness. If in the face of all the weight of logic and rational argument an otherwise intelligent individual wishes to believe in the destructive nonsense that is racism and champion it as a cause, I think there is a serious case to be made for their suffering from some form of mental illness.

"How on earth would you know what position of economic and social power I have achieved?" I don't. I was suggesting that an intelligent racist would be aiming to stop people of others races from achieving economic and social power rather than shouting at them in the street. I wasn't making any comment on whether they'd been successful in your case or anyone elses. "I happen to think I have achieved a level of economic and social power that is about right for my (somewhat low) level of ability. I do not think I have been in any way held back by some shadowy conspiracy of intellectual racists responding negatively to my ethnicity." I didn't mention a shadowy conspiracy. I was primarily suggesting that intelligent racists would argue for laws in terms of housing, economics, education, policing, immigration etc. which would prioritise the interests of their own racial group over other racial groups. "Indeed in at least a couple of cases I think the system worked in my favour to advance me beyond what I probably deserved." Absolutely. In Britain racists are on the fringe of society but the fact that racists aren't generally successful in this country, doesn't mean they're not intelligent people, it means that a majority of people - of various levels of intelligence - disagree with their position.

Buk I've heard of revisionism but this is ridiculous. You've re-engineered the point you were making in the last two paras of your post of 16:33 to fit your new argument in the above post. What you're saying now is absolutely not what you said then.

Broosh, I think you did misunderstand Buk. When I first read the comment I had to re-read it because I thought you're joking right. Another reason for racism sems to be jealousy along with a fear of the unknown. For instance many Asians run successful businesses and are then wealthy, down to their work ethos. People who can't manage that success can get envious, it is then easier for racists like Griffin to convince peope it's because they (the Asians) are getting preferential treatment. Especially at times of economic crisis. The likes of Griffin would, if given the chance, make it more difficult for minorities to succeed. None of them, as yet, have had the chance. I think as Alan pointed out it is also education and environment. Why do so many rich people vote for the more centre right, mainly to protect their wealth. Yet people can't deny that poverty is wrong and that say, the state Africa's in, poverty wise, is unacceptable. Yet the majority of the rich will still try and make sure nothing filters down from their personal wealth. They aren't mentally ill, it just suits their own agenda. I know it's slightly different from racism but I hope the comparrison can be recognised. nobody

"What you're saying now is absolutely not what you said then." My argument hasn't changed at all. You just misunderstood it and then added some bits to it that weren't there and that aren't my opinion.

' ...Yet people can't deny that poverty is wrong and that say, the state Africa's in, poverty wise, is unacceptable... ' A facet of this problem rarely discussed, or maybe even rarely considered, (I say this because I've never seen it discussed either in print or on the radio/TV), is that it is not just a case of the wealthy protecting their wealth, but they understand that wealth is a comparative thing and they are only wealthy whilst there is an under-class. It's in their interests to ensure the poor STAY poor. That is a primary function of the class system, and also why the class system is so strong and protected in this country.

I thought the class system was supposed to have nothing to do with wealth. Wealthy people still claim to be working class if they've got an accent that will pass, while utterly skint graduates are still middle class because they parents are teachers. That said, if you take class out of the equation, I think you're right. People talk about how awful poverty is, but their actions will mostly stem from a greater concern with their own wealth, and with maintaining a system that supports that wealth, however unfair it might be on others.

So everyone is selfish... (didn't I once argue this somewhere before?) pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

"I thought the class system was supposed to have nothing to do with wealth." The class system is primarily about power and status but - in a capitalist system - wealth is pretty big factor in power and status. Wealthy people who claim to be working class - rather than being from a working class background - are either wrong or working from a definition of class that's unconnected to power and economics, and is therefore meaningless.

' ..I thought the class system was supposed to have nothing to do with wealth. ... ' I'm not sure where you got that idea from, but it's patently obvious that power and status are inextricably intertwined with the accumulation of wealth, and all three components combine within the upper echelons of the class system. It may be the case that some wealthy people have their origins in the lower or working classes but their wealth affords them class mobility. Some of these will continue to claim to be working class in order to protect their status within their origins, or even as a means of insisting that wealth, power or status hasn't changed them. Whatever theories are put forward it cannot be denied that money is power, power is status, and status is what passes for higher class in a modern world.

"...status is what passes for higher class in a modern world..." Fact is, many people still regard the likes of Oasis and various footballers as working class heroes. There is the widespread perception that you are born into your class, and that there are things beyond wealth that dictate whether or not you fall out of it. Certainly, people who haven't got much money or status but read the Guardian and lack regional accents would have a difficult time passing themselves off as working class. The alternative, which you guys seem to be proposing, is that a person could change from upper middle class to working class over the course of an ill-judged gambling spree. "So everyone is selfish... " Selfishness is a strong drive behind people's actions. That doesn't mean everyone is selfish all of the time, and I'd maintain that the 'good feelings' people get from moral or useful actions do not give us any indication as to whether or not their motives are selfish.

Oasis are only working class heroes to their fans, most others see Liam at least, as an uncouth slob that deserves a fucking good hiding. I dispute they have any status in the real world anyway, only in their booze and crumpet version of it. Real status is that which allows access to, or authority within, power. I'm not suggesting that a person born into the upper classes descends into the murkier areas as a result of losing his wealth (Lord Lucan being a case in point), what I'm saying is there IS a certain amount of class migration upwards. This may be because many lower/working-class people aspire to what they perceive as sophistication and power, whilst I doubt anyone that actually has it, yearns to be Albert Steptoe.

"The alternative, which you guys seem to be proposing, is that a person could change from upper middle class to working class over the course of an ill-judged gambling spree." Well, no, because their power and status would - in most cases - enable them to regain a significant chunk of their wealth, if not all of it. In an unlikely case where a gambling spree left the upper middle class person destitute - and their family and peers chose not to help them out and to have nothing more to with them - they would effectively become part of the underclass. But part of the benefit of being in strong social position to begin with is that you're more likely to get bailed out by your friends and family when things go wrong.

"...what I'm saying is there IS a certain amount of class migration upwards." Yes, definitely, although the impression I had was that the migration had more to do with affecting certain airs and graces than the actual change in wealth and power. My grandparents on my mother's side were partly concerned with upward migration, and part of that, for them, was learning to speak BBC English. "...whilst I doubt anyone that actually has it, yearns to be Albert Steptoe." Well, there *are* elements of the middle and upper middle class who do want to be perceived as working class. Guy Ritchie, for instance, is accused of pretending to be working class when he isn't. He wouldn't give up his money and status, sure - but I think it points towards class being, at least in part, to do with certain attitudes. I don't know if it's *just* Oasis fans - I get the impression that if you stay 'true' to some sort of core system, an element of the working class will support you however rich you get. Some celebrities get tonnes of support from people who feel they, in some way, represent them. "...they would effectively become part of the underclass." You say 'underclass', but would anyone actually accept such a person as a member of the 'working class'?

Affecting airs and graces won't help to raise anyone, without either a lot of cash, the right connections, or a lot of luck. Money on the other hand, CAN if used wisely, eg. buy time at a good finishing school to polish the rough edges, effect a sudden rise in social position. Guy Ritchie doesn't want to BE working class, he justs wants the proletariat to consider him 'one of the lads'. It's considered 'cool' to be acceptable to those who occupy a lower strata of society. My use of the term 'underclass' in preference to 'working class' was deliberate to illustrate the practiced superiority of the middle and upper classes. I was actually referring to the working class.

""...they would effectively become part of the underclass." You say 'underclass', but would anyone actually accept such a person as a member of the 'working class'?"" No. And they wouldn't be working class until they got a job and supported themselves by earning wages. But whether they're accepted isn't the point. The existence of a meaningful class structure is determined by the social and economic situation, not the level of class consciousness - or the extent to which people with a similar level of social and economic power relate to each other. Unlike Missi, I wasn't using 'underclass' to mean 'working class'. Working class, for me, refers to non-professional skilled workers who support themselves through their labour. The 'underclass' refers to unskilled workers, the unemployed and people who are unable to seek work but would do if they were able to. This is obviously extremely broad, non-specific stuff.

JC: "Selfishness is a strong drive behind people's actions. That doesn't mean everyone is selfish all of the time, and I'd maintain that the 'good feelings' people get from moral or useful actions do not give us any indication as to whether or not their motives are selfish." Okay... :-) pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

Class exists, but in what contexts is it useful or meaningful to examine its definitions? pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

I used 'underclass' because I've always felt that the so called 'upper' class think of everybody beneath them in the social structure as being 'underclass'. That may not be the generally accepted view but it's what 'I''ve' always felt. So there.

"Affecting airs and graces won't help to raise anyone, without either a lot of cash, the right connections, or a lot of luck." The affecting of airs and graces is, I presume, the principle method of making the right connections. People of a higher class end up liking you if you can pull off a convincing impression of the sort of person they like. Pretend to be something long enough, and you will become it etc. OK, well, the operative word here is David's 'meaningful'. By 'meaningful', I take it you mean a class system that is related to something concrete. I would suggest, however, that people's class consciousness, or inherited/aesthetically focused idea of what class means, is not absolutely meaningless, but still has some significance.

"Class exists, but in what contexts is it useful or meaningful to examine its definitions?" It's useful to examine its definitions in any context where you're talking about it or you have no way of knowing what you or anyone else is talking about. That's true of any word if the definition is contentious. "I would suggest, however, that people's class consciousness, or inherited/aesthetically focused idea of what class means, is not absolutely meaningless, but still has some significance." I wasn't say it was absolutely meaningless. People's view of themselves has a bit effect on their behaviour and the level of class consciousness certainly has a huge effect on political and social developments. In that sense, it's extremely important but it isn't meaningful in terms of determining someone's level of social and economic power. To avoid over-intellectualising things, I'm making Jarvis Cocker's point from Common People: "Smoke some fags and play some pool, pretend you never went to school. But still you'll never get it right 'cos when you're laid in bed at night watching roaches climb the wall If you call your Dad he could stop it all." It's the underlying position of economic and social power (or lack of it) that determines someone's class.

Numerous and... isn't social class ultimately subjective? Hence the complex confusion in attempting to define it objectively...? pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

"It's the underlying position of economic and social power (or lack of it) that determines someone's class." I think you've created a circular argument for yourself here. You say that for class to have any meaning it has to be related to economic and social power, then you say that it is the underlying position of economic and social power that determines someone's class. It isn't contradictory, but there's no reasoning outside the assertion. You say class a is matter of/equals/is determined by social and economic power, and this is the bottom line - the point is that, for a lot of people, it means more than this. That's why Madonna is scoffed at for 'pretending' to be upper class, even though she quite blatantly is at the top of the tree. And that's why people get confused as to what class they're in. I think I'm pretty blatantly middle class, for instance, but that my grandparents are pretty blatantly working class, and my parents migrated. But I don't hold any greater amount of social or economic power than my grandparents. So, by your definition of class, one of my presumptions here must be wrong.