Tom Myatt | Senior Editor
Weirdos and crackpots have for centuries been trying to find new ways to get their messages across. When constructing and communicating an intelligent argument failed, they often resorted to non-traditional methods to try to get the attention they desired. The internet is simply the latest platform for political extremists. In recent years, a Facebook page and website has appeared in my home country, Great Britain, and it has more ‘likes’ than the three main political parties combined. The page is called ‘Britain First’.
In many ways, this is simply an extension of the broader anti-establishment feelings following the global crash. The leaders of the three main parties rightly refused to bow to more radical elements in their parties and in the public at large, but in doing so alienated some voters, predominantly unemployed or working class, who have since been seeking a new way of engaging with politics.
Similar to the far-left, the far-right’s platform seems to rest on fundamentally misguided views of morality, economics, and how a modern technical and highly complicated twenty-first century society is run. Many posts on ‘Britain First’ are directed at non-British nationals and religious minorities. At the time of writing, the most recent simply showed a queue of immigrants waiting to enter the country, with the ever-imaginative line “go home, we’re full”. Another simply showed the eyes of a head scarf-wearing woman, with a line of “ban the burqa”.
In their fantasy world, the state is to have no interference in our lives, but is simultaneously allowed to tell us (or perhaps ‘other people’) what is and is not acceptable to wear.
What annoys me is the immediate and obvious simplicity to these overarching statements. Saying a country is full is grossly ill-defined and says nothing concrete, and to oppose the burqa one needs to formulate a well-constructed argument. In their fantasy world, the state is to have no interference in our lives, but is simultaneously allowed to tell us (or perhaps ‘other people’) what is and is not acceptable to wear. Most other messages concern nationalism and the suspicion of outsiders.
Something else that this centrist Brit finds annoying is the use of the crown in their logo which can be seen in their electoral campaigns and as the current cover photo on Facebook. This may seem petty to get annoyed about, but the use of the crown arrogantly lays claim to some kind of traditional legitimacy – that while they are an anti-establishment organisation, they still seek to use the symbol of the monarch. This not only seems contradictory, but it’s use falsely suggests that official figures in the establishment support their views. The idea that the Queen herself or anyone in the establishment holds these views today is nothing short of hilarious. They would love to imagine that they have the great old aristocrats of the land on their side, to claim this legitimacy of traditional values, but it is simply not true.
The use of the crown arrogantly lays claim to some kind of traditional legitimacy – that while they are an anti-establishment organisation, they still seek to use the symbol of the monarch.
In recent months, the page seems to have ventured out not just from being loud on social media, but to actively running candidates in real elections. What’s interesting about this, from a business perspective, is that this means Britain First must not be a for-profit business. If it was a website run by entrepreneurs who are simply tapping into an emerging online market for nationalists, it would most certainly be against electoral laws for them to stand candidates. This means the organisers believe what their page spews out, seemingly unaware of the nasty real-world effects of their messages. The party is fielding a candidate called Jayda Fransen in the by-election in Rochester, which will take place on the 20th November.
Her and her party’s policies are certainly worth observation. What is most striking is that the poster takes pride in stating that Fransen in “politically in-correct” and “guaranteed pro-British”. There is little talk of specific policies, perhaps meaning that “pro-British” is open to the interpretation of the party and its membership base. If the Facebook page’s posts are anything to go by, however, this would mean banning certain religious dresses and the immediate withdrawal of the United Kingdom from international institutions. In a recently posted video, which appears to have since been removed, Britain First supporters walked into the headquarters of the Rochester Conservative Party while they were campaigning, simply to shout at them. The video, and the attitudes it shows, appear to conflict both with the concepts of fair play and mutual respect, as well as electoral laws.
If the far-right continue to feel that even the British National Party is too mainstream, extremist sentiments may not remain marginalised for long.
To a certain extent, instead of simply criticising the group, which would simply give them the attention that they crave (ironic, given that I’ve written this article), we should be looking at why the white working class in Britain is embracing extremism in the first place. These people may simply have anger, but little idea of where to direct it. It is then easy for extremist groups to come along with a simplistic message that sounds convincing and comforting if not given much scrutiny. When times are hard, we often revert to perceived ‘traditional’ values out of a need to feel secure. Britain First offers both of these concepts, and has provided a perfectly fertile ground in which anti-establishment anger can grow.
Fortunately, the most recent ComRes poll of Rochester puts ‘other’ parties, in which Britain First is included, at 1%. But if the far-right continue to feel that even the British National Party is too mainstream, extremist sentiments may not remain marginalised for long.
