MATTHEW FELDMAN ON THE UK FAR RIGHT: A VAUDEVILLE PROFESSOR? by Dr Larry O’Hara
WHY THIS ARTICLE?
Emeritus Professor Matthew Feldman (to give him his full title) first crossed our radar when hearing about his evidence at one of the recent trials for membership of the neo-Nazi group National Action in the UK. Thereafter, interest piqued, I decided both to examine his academic output and the various trials he has testified at. This article, covering Feldman’s academic output, should be read in conjunction with that just published in Notes From the Borderland magazine issue 12 on those trials. Two aspects of Feldman’s research deserve especial scrutiny: his understanding of the British Far Right historically and, bringing it up to date, what he has to say about the modern neo-Nazi bible, James Mason’s ‘Siege’ and groups inspired by it to some degree. That will be dealt with in a separate article. There is of necessity some overlap between this article and that in the magazine, principally regarding Feldman’s CV. However the core of this piece is his academic work on the UK Far Right, whereas the core of the magazine article is those trials, followed by detailed consideration of his motivations/affiliations not included here. Only by reading both can the Feldman oeuvre be fully comprehended. For those who expect everything of significance to be on the internet this might come as an unpleasant shock: perhaps lessened by knowledge the magazine can be obtained as a PDF from this site. Visit the Notes from the Borderland SHOP – Notes From The Borderland. We have offered Feldman a right to reply to both the magazine article and this one: he has thus far declined but is welcome to change his mind.
WHO IS MATTHEW FELDMAN?
American by birth, he has written/contributed to 20 or so books, including a well-regarded one on Samuel Beckett, his PhD subject: who was many things but certainly no fascist, which might partly explain Feldman’s sloppiness when it comes to the Far Right[i]. Though the fact that from the same institution (Oxford Brookes University) just prior to that Feldman obtained an MA (with distinction) in the history of fascism makes errors on his part less excusable. To his credit, while working at Northampton University (2004-12) Feldman played a key role in them acquiring the limited (but important and still growing) Searchlight magazine archive of Far-Right materials, now curated by the svelte Daniel Jones. Moving to Teesside University in 2012 he became Professor in the Modern History of Ideas, before abruptly leaving during the academic year in December 2017. Feldman makes (or did until recently) frequent media appearances, mostly talking about the Far Right but also religious cults, and enjoys numerous Fellowships/Visiting Chairs. His political sympathies lie firmly on the Labour Right: a heated Twitter exchange with Dr Aaron Winter saw Feldman referring to Labour’s “antisemitism scandal” and stating as an evident accusation “unless I’m wrong, you were last seen calling for Corbyn’s reinstatement” [ii]. Feldman’s work on Beckett and Ezra Pound may be excellent but is irrelevant here.
His most prominent role between 2018 and 2022 was as Director of the ‘Centre For the Analysis of the Radical Right’ (CARR) which he co-founded [iii]. On 5/2/22 Feldman precipitately resigned, leaving Dr William Allchorn as Acting Director. CARR (formerly accessible at radicalrightanalysis.com) was a massive web-site with formerly many academic contributors world-wide, and until his departure often updated, though barely afterwards: the last episode of the ‘Right Rising’ podcast was 2/2/22. Now, the same site has no reference to CARR but merely contains a few ‘stub’ articles, and is currently owned by an Australian opportunist interested in selling mortgages! An attempt by CARR after Feldman decamped to run its own MA in ‘Terrorism, Security & Radical Right Extremism’ in conjunction with Richmond University bombed (so to speak). Though they seem to have taken slight pity on Allchorn and made him an ‘Adjunct Associate Professor’ (i.e. lower-paid casual worker).
CARR itself didn’t make any money, the relevant Community Interest Company never submitted accounts and was forcibly dissolved 11/4/22. Perhaps, indeed, being the galvanising force herding a flock of fourth-rate pedants meant Feldman (at the time earning good money from appearing as a CPS ‘expert witness’ in far right terrorism trials) simply got fed up. Though there is another possible reason, not yet in the public domain. Feldman resigned from the CARR Community Interest Company and removed all mention of CARR from his LinkedIn account: even past membership, and (in April 2022) deleted his Twitter account. Whatever the precise reasons for Feldman’s departure, CARR’s swift demise post-Feldman obliquely indicates just how important he was: and how insubstantial the acolytes/hangers on were. Most references to Feldman on the CARR site (previously extensive, hagiographical even) were erased with lightning speed, as too the article posted by Dr Craig McCann on 2/2/22 criticising Anti-Fa that lit the blue touch-paper for Feldman’s detractors: though somewhat bizarrely the reply by Alexander Reid-Ross remained until the latest post-CARR incarnation of the website. This was academic debate of Moscow Trials standard, perhaps with Feldman cast as the absent Trotsky & McCann as Bukharin, though neither blessed with those old Bolsheviks intellect….
Unfortunately, the ‘Rebel Alliance’ of 27 CARR Fellows/ex-Fellows, whose dismay at CARR’s 4/2/22 response to the furore surrounding McCann’s article ostensibly precipitated Feldman’s departure, did not focus on Feldman’s research, probably because the general standard of academic knowledge concerning the Far Right is poor. Not just poor, but unquestioning, leaving the field open for state stooges like Hope Not Hate to peddle lucrative nonsense. Most participants in that debate about CARR’s future, and the field as a whole, use ‘extremism’ as a handy label to attack political actors they dislike, a terminological misnomer further compounded by Roger Eatwell’s glib pseudo-concept ‘cumulative extremism’. Two things I will return to on this site.
FELDMAN IN ACADEME: HARDLY PROFESSORIAL
Adhering to civilised academic debate Feldman finds difficult. For confirmation check out this response to a book review in the Los Angeles Review of Books[iv]. Feldman’s initial missive speaks of a “sneering, utterly misrepresentative review…[which] fails to explain the arguments or evidence adduced in Hate in the Homeland. Despite the big talk, the ideas expressed in this review are presented as if in crayon….Let us be charitable and call him a poor reader”. After the reviewer (Peter Berard) robustly responded, identifying his critique as “Strawmanning; arguments from authority; a sputtering rage incapable of focusing on any one object of its ire: these features of Feldman’s letter are all familiar to anyone who has encountered a certain kind of liberal — typically ensconced in academia, legacy media, or think tanks — react to criticism from their left”, Feldman had another go. The implication is he wanted Berard sacked as a reviewer–“I was surprised the LARB decided to publish a review of two monographs by someone who seems determined to compare them while having failed to understand one of them….my criticism remains equally of Mr. Berard’s unsuitability as a reviewer, and the LARB’s willingness to publish something so misrepresentative”. Entertaining, but hardly edifying.
In a 2021 Twitter exchange Feldman accused academic Dr Aurelien Mondon of having dismissed Jewish concerns about Left wing anti-Semitism. When challenged by Mondon, who resented the insinuation, Feldman declined to provide evidence, instead suggesting Mondon himself provide evidence he hadn’t. A further indication Feldman has no commitment to academic freedom, let alone civilised debate, is shown by his taunting Mondon: “Let’s try an easy one: what is your position on David Miller? I notice your signature was absent from the academic letter I helped organise….Can you explain that to me? [v]. Indeed an “easy one”—the Bristol University investigation into Miller by an outside lawyer cleared him of anti-Semitism, though they sacked him anyway [vi]. Feldman’s admission he helped witch-hunt Miller speaks volumes of his zero regard for academic freedom. A lack of regard shared, it seems, by Marie van der Zyl, President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, who perhaps helped Feldman co-ordinate that campaign[vii]. Miller himself was later vindicated, an employment tribunal finding in his favour[viii].
This is not to say Mondon’s research is more fit for purpose than Feldman’s (see my review of the book ‘Reactionary Democracy’ he co-wrote with Aaron Winter on this web-site) or that he favours unfettered debate either, judging by his earlier Tweet “Free speech cannot exist in a white patriarchal capitalist society—it is so unequally distributed that pretending it is free only serves to reinforce elitist interests. In such a context, the defence of free speech can only be reactionary” [ix]. In which camp Mondon presumably locates Noam Chomsky, who has said “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all”. Yes, Chomsky as reactionary: that figures (not).
In 2019 Feldman Tweeted about academic Dr Tarek Younis, who had criticised the Prevent programme, that “in days of greater honour @Tarek_Younis would be treated as a social leper for his ad hominem attacks on people trying to help…what an awful pitiful person”. Earlier, Feldman threatened to sue someone (from the context not clear who) for having according to Younis “barely insinuated he was racist” [x]. An earlier dispute with Football Lads & Lasses Against Fascism (FLAF), chronicled by the inimitable Zelo Street Blog, Feldman termed FLAF “thugs” and attacked historian Dr Louise Raw using words which, once you have read this piece, might agree apply rather to him, claiming she “doesn’t get the subject of fascism and/or the radical right; and aggressively parades this ignorance” [xi]. Dr Raw sympathises with the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and her support for Palestinians alone would probably irk Feldman, as a witch-hunter of David Miller. What all these interactions (and more not quoted) show is despite Feldman’s continued use of a Professorial title, he lacks the basic common courtesy such a title should denote. Therefore, no need for kid gloves in debate with Feldman: happy to oblige. Though for the record, one saving grace: Feldman isn’t racist.
FELDMAN ON BRITISH NAZISM
‘Emeritus Professor of Modern Ideas’ Feldman (unlike your average journalist/cop) should be measured against the highest possible standards. While you might imagine a Court-approved expert on post-war British Nazism to be conversant with all facts regarding this political strain, this is not so in his case. To substantiate this assertion, read on…
THE NATIONAL FRONT IN THE 1970’s
A 2016 article in Patterns of Prejudice co-written with John Pollard asserted that “it is interesting to note how the post-war radical right in Britain—such as the National Front, the British Movement, Blood & Honour, Combat 18 and others—have not flinched from an openly pro-Nazi stance” [xii]. Interesting: just not strictly true. In the anthology ‘Politics, Intellectuals and Faith’ (hereafter PIF) Feldman defines Neo-Nazism as “an ideology seeking to unite mythically defined ‘Aryans’ through a programme closely derived from the motivations and policies of Hitler’s Third Reich” [xiii]. While unquestionably describing the BM/B&H/C18, an openly pro-Nazi stance has never been true for the NF, by far the largest group in its day. Yes, the Front had Nazi-inclined members, especially Strasserites like Richard Lawson Steve Brady & Joe Pearce in the day, as well as some local activists [xiv]. Additionally, National Activities Organiser Martin Webster and sometime Chairman John Tyndall both cut their political teeth in the Nazi fringe. None of this stopped the NF attempting to counter 1970’s Anti-Nazi League propaganda featuring Tyndall in paramilitary uniform at the 1962 founding meeting of the World Union of National Socialists in the Cotswolds. A widely-distributed 1978 NF defence leaflet answered the question “Is the National Front ‘Fascist’ or ‘Nazi’” unequivocally, stating “No. The National Front is a 100 per cent patriotic British party. It has no links with foreign parties or ideologies. It is pledged to the maintenance of parliamentary democracy and individual freedom” [xv]. While false, it does indicate the Tyndall NF was not openly pro-Nazi, Feldman’s claim, for a denial of Nazism, however insincere, signifies an attitude that is definitely not unflinching.
Or if the NF was as an organisation Nazi, perhaps the Emeritus Professor could provide proof? What Tyndall himself believed can be gleaned from a private 1981 letter to long-time lieutenant Richard Edmonds, when he had left the NF but not yet formed the BNP, and was heading transitional outfit the New National Front. He commented “time and time again it has come to my attention that branches are becoming too over involved on the question of National Socialism, this preoccupation is premature and whilst I find such interest commendable we would be side tracking if we were to involve ourselves too enthusiastically. Organisers have the responsibility of nurturing National Socialism but not as yet furthering it. Our role should be to create a strong NS leadership base” [xvi]. While this shows the earlier leaflet (written by Tyndall) to be a lie it does indicate, again, he was not “openly pro-Nazi” in what later became the BNP, even less the NF.
BLOOD & HONOUR
Of the Neo-Nazi music organisation ‘Blood & Honour’, in PIF Feldman claims “during the 1990’s this movement merged with, and indeed in the UK was virtually indistinguishable from, Combat 18” (p.286). Untrue: in March 1994 C18 temporarily took over Blood & Honour [xvii], but even before C18 split in late 1996 many involved in Blood & Honour resisted the take-over: as chronicled in the widely distributed 1996 document compiled by George Eric Hawthorne (Resistance magazine editor) entitled ‘Blood & Dishonour: The Dishonourable Conduct of C18’, quoting numerous sources, not least David Lane (member of murderous US group The Order) accorded cult-like status for having coined the ubiquitous 14 word phrase used by Neo-Nazis—“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children”. He said of C18 “for alleged White resisters to use the enemy’s tactics is ludicrous and deplorable” [xviii]. And so on: by late 1996 as soon as the opportunity arose due to C18 internal strife Blood & Honour magazine reverted to non-C18 control and the postal address changed to BCM Box 6826 from the C18-controlled BM 5608 [xix]. Thus, there never was any merger, and C18 dominance (never total supremacy) of the B&H scene lasted barely two and a half years. Indeed, of the letter bombs sent to the UK from Sweden on behalf of Will Browning/C18 in January 1997–one went to Steven Cartwright, Scottish B&H organiser[xx]. Hatred by C18 for the original/continuing Blood & Honour escalated, culminating in a couple of short-lived ersatz Blood & Honour magazines produced by Browning C18 faction in early 1999 when they knew they had finally lost. [SEE IMAGE BELOW]
Facts such as these don’t trouble Feldman who, I hope you are beginning to discern, makes it up as he goes along. While I fully appreciate most readers (except long-term subscribers to Notes From the Borderland magazine) will know little about such obscure groups, that isn’t the point here. Put it another way: would you think a historian of the Labour Party credible if they said ‘During the 2010’s Labour merged with, and was virtually indistinguishable from, Left wing supporters of Jeremy Corbyn’. You wouldn’t, as it is common knowledge Corbyn became leader only in 2015 and left after the December 2019 General Election. Before Corbyn, Labour was hardly Leftist, and under Starmer Corbyn supporters have been purged and intimidated. Thus, any assertion Corbyn supporters ruled the roost throughout the decade is nonsense, and no bona fide expert would assert otherwise. That C18/Blood & Honour are obscure groups places (or should place) an onus on so-called experts to be especially rigorous with facts, not so Feldman. He clearly doesn’t always practice what he preached in an interview regarding fascists that “closer and better reading can…show us the pitfalls of conspiratorial mindsets” [xxi].
THE NATIONAL FRONT AFTER 1979
Returning to the NF, their 1979 General Election rout: 0.6% of the vote for 303 candidates, totalling 191,719, was a disaster for them. After all, in 1977 the NF garnered 5.3% of the vote from an impressive 119,000 electors in Greater London alone. This 1979 reverse caused a major rethink internally among those left, which contributed to Tyndall’s 1980 departure and the 1983 defenestration of Activities Organiser Martin Webster. The more thinking NF members spent the 1980’s trying to construct an ideology and strategy that was definitely, and consciously, anti-Hitler. A diverse range of ideological sources were looked at: not just the Strassers/Darre but far more importantly Hilaire Belloc (Distributism), Social Credit and especially foreign fascists like Julius Evola/Corneliu Codreanou. Again, the NF at this time was never ‘openly Nazi’, much less ‘not flinching’ from it, despite praise for the Strassers by the increasingly influential Derek Holland [xxii]. His aim was not to advance Strasserism, but attack Adolf Hitler’s followers, concluding with the sentiments “Reaction is for reactionaries, Revolution for Revolutionaries. Hitler cultism is a sign of chronic Reaction—it has no place in the National Front now or ever”[xxiii]. I would argue, and have, that even this lip-service to Strasserism was a tactical feint by the ‘political soldier’ faction between 1983-85, dropped after they seized full control in 1986. The Official NF’s stridently anti-Nazi politics came to the fore (‘openly’ as Feldman might say), in early 1988 when an unsigned article (by Holland) suggested “on the one hand, we have the NF advocating a National Revolution, which will bring about a spiritual transformation and socio-economic justice, while on the other we have a musty, moth-eaten imperialism that is nothing other than the cult of Hitler worship…vile reaction being propagated by the miniscule BNP” [xxiv]. No need to name-check Strasser by this point. Or does Feldman think Hitler wasn’t a Nazi? That said, an NF News editorial did name-check Strasser, unflinchingly (to coin a phrase) head-lined ‘Nazi Scum’, plugging the afore-mentioned article by Holland and stating “Nazism is a disease which must be fought and eradicated from even the fringes of political life in Britain”. A sub-heading informs us “Strasserism as Bad” and concedes that while the Strasser’s “Nazism was not so fawningly pro-capitalist as the main brand…it still sought to place enormous political and economic power in the hands of the State. So it is just as unacceptable”, concluding “Nazism is a cancer. The operation to cut it out from our Movement must continue”[xxv]. [SEE IMAGE BELOW]
Incontrovertibly, there is room for reasoned debate about NF 1980s ideology: those genuinely interested in the history of far-right ideas/tactics should consult the excellent concise book by Alan Sykes ‘The Radical Right’ impressively covering the whole century [xxvi], or my Lobster magazine series analysing the period between 1974 and 1986 in referenced detail or indeed my PhD on this very subject [xxvii]. To such debate, Feldman, on current showing, would have little to contribute.
THE BNP & NAZISM (1)
The British National Party are strangely missing from Feldman’s list yet in their day were by far the most influential post-war fascist group. Now, a case can be made, especially in the light of sentiments quoted above, for John Tyndall (BNP Leader 1982-99) having a personal aversion to C18 Nazism that was more tactical/self-preserving than ideological [xxviii]. Some BNP branches: such as Liverpool/Leeds/Croydon, were decidedly National Socialist in orientation [xxix]. However, the BNP as a whole never projected a Nazi image nationally even in the Tyndall era [xxx]. National Organiser Tony Lecomber, with Tyndall since the early 1980’s, was allowed in 1996 to launch a coded attack on Nazism in Spearhead (JT’s own magazine) arguing “any association with past nationalist regimes is the kiss of death” and while some British Nationalists “understandably look back to the thirties with some nostalgia…the thirties flavour is, like it or not, long past its sell by date and is a positive voter turn-off. Most people recognise this—even those who would describe themselves as national socialists” [xxxi]. The electoral (‘Euro-Nationalist’) orientation of Lecomber and Eddy Butler made them hate figures for the genuine Nazis of C18, in Lecomber’s case resulting him being dumped down a manhole by a C18 Leader Wilf Browning [xxxii].
Nick Griffin (a former leader of the rival political soldier NF), Tyndall’s successor between 1999 and 2014, was more forthright. An important 2002 article declared “we have to identify and actively reject as an enemy…Hitler”. After a clear dig at the deposed Tyndall (as one of a number of “deluded individuals…[who had] flirted with Nazism in the early stages of their careers”), Griffin stated “Let’s face facts. Hitler was a disaster not just for Germany but the whole white race” [xxxiii]. This did not make Griffin any less racist, or fascist, and he has always been willing to humour the Nazi music scene (for funds and to get muscle’ as spelt out in detail to bogus French Front National officials working for the 1997 Cook Report programme[xxxiv]), and has never wavered from Holocaust Denial [xxxv], but that does not make him a Nazi. Certainly, especially when he was challenging Tyndall, Griffin was happy to consort with Nazis. But that really is indicative he always has been a political chameleon.
The NF or BNP were never formally Nazi organisations, and certainly not openly. Though to repeat, if they were, produce evidence. A serious question here: why, in an academic article on the Far Right did Feldman and his co-author exclude the BNP, which after all won two European Parliament seats in 2009? Was it because he knew the BNP weren’t openly Nazi? Though given the NF weren’t either even that isn’t an adequate explanation. Feldman’s cavalier disregard for evidence generally is unforgiveable: even more so in that having played a part in securing the Searchlight archive for Northampton University Feldman should be both aware of how important primary sources are, and still be able to access them, at least for the pre-2010 period looked at above where the archive is strongest.
Is Feldman not aware it took great manoeuvring by the then Neo-Nazi John Tyndall to inveigle his Greater Britain Movement into the newly formed NF in 1967 [xxxvi]? As for the “others…[who]…have not flinched from an openly pro-Nazi stance” in the Feldman/Pollard quote reproduced above, what kind of a ludicrous label is that? Who are they? Seeking to have it both ways, Feldman and co-author Pollard say of the NF, BM B&H and C18 “paradoxically, these and other elements of the contemporary British radical right have moved beyond the inspiration of the rigid models provided by interwar fascism, above all German National Socialism” [xxxvii]. Apart from the absurdity of seeing ideological development as “paradoxical” I must inform Professor Feldman the British Movement certainly haven’t, nor the C18 remnants. As an aside, it is no surprise somebody ignorant about the National Front like Feldman writes about Evola (p.335-336) without mentioning his influence on the Official National Front between 1983-90 via Roberto Fiore/Derek Holland/The journal Rising. Elsewhere, he mentions Michael Walker as being an “ideological offshoot” of the French New Right “in…Britain” [xxxviii]. Does he not know Walker (although a former Central London NF Organiser) has lived in Koln for many years, from there producing the now defunct but influential Scorpion magazine? Guess not….
MORE SLOPPINESS
Were errors in the afore-mentioned article due to co-authorship? No such excuse for Feldman’s solo 2018 offering [xxxix], though to be fair, here he does display some knowledge of Tyndall’s ideology. However, Feldman states “following the NF’s disintegration, the British National Party (BNP) was formed by Tyndall in 1982” [xl]. Sorry to interrupt, but the NF existed until 1990 in Official form and in 1982, and even later, it was by no means clear Tyndall would win the BNP war with the NF. As Tony Lecomber, a key BNP strategist, put it in 2001, “throughout the bleak 1980s…as rival parties floundered, the BNP gradually emerged as Britain’s premier nationalist party—something by no means certain when the…BNP first formed” [xli]. Hopefully by now you grasp Feldman’s approach (influenced for sure by his Searchlight associations)—get it ‘more or less’ right, and if facts don’t fit, ignore them. It’s only fascists after all, who cares? Unlike (some) Islamists, they aren’t likely to sue, and if they did, unlikely to win.
What are we to make of Feldman’s claim in his 2018 article that (then) English Defence League Leader “Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (AKA Tommy Robinson) possesses a street credibility that the BNP’s Roger Griffin does not” [xlii]. Hardly a polite way to refer to Feldman’s 66-year-old mentor Roger Griffin, a venerable academic in some circles. Or did he mean Nick? Someone Griffin anyway.
THE BNP & NAZISM (2)
Sadly, Feldman understands the BNP no more than the NF. In a 2011 Frontline club meeting (to audience laughter) he referred to a street confrontation between BNP candidate Bob Bailey and local youths. Stating that in Barking & Dagenham there was a “guy assaulted by the local BNP election candidate. You only have to scratch them and a Neo-Nazi comes out” [xliii]. This of course isn’t the full picture: to quote from my review of the 2010 ‘Battle For Barking’ TV documentary (available on this site here THE BATTLE FOR BARKING (MORE 4 30/11/2010) REVIEWED – Notes From The Borderland)–
”In a crucial passage that evinces Fairrie’s integrity as a film-maker, she shows two related scenes that quickly followed each other: somebody less scrupulous might have omitted the former. In the first scene, local youths are shown verbally abusing Griffin and his team, one stating “fuck off you piece of shit, I’m going to kill you”. At this point, the BNP retreat, however a short while later the group catches them up. Having been pursued, Bailey is spat at by one youth–at that point, he loses it, and vigorously attacks the perpetrator, up to and including kicking his head while on the floor. An instance of BNP thuggery–but by showing the lead up to it, Fairrie conveys the way (in this case at least) Bailey was provoked. As such, although reprehensible, his behaviour is understandable–in a way the snippet of this incident viewed by upwards of half a million people on You-Tube does not convey. That charges were brought against Bailey (and his antagonists) but later dropped, is not mentioned”.
Elsewhere, with a snake oil salesman’s practised dexterity, Feldman states that in 2009 “only a decade earlier photographs had shown then-leader John Tyndall dressed in Nazi regalia and depicted him with David Copeland, who killed several and maimed dozens more in an April 1999 attack on gay and ethnic minority areas in London” [xliv]. Readers are given the clear impression Tyndall was thus attired in 1999, perhaps even in Copeland’s company. Yet as we have seen, those photos, first widely circulated in the 1970’s, dated back to 1962. Though to repeat, for Feldman it’s only fascists, who cares? So no need (for example) to mention Nick Griffin’s pivotal (and controversial) 2002 article advancing a rather different take on Adolf Hitler mentioned above. To reiterate, that did not make Griffin any less fascist, but his was/is a non-Nazi fascism, to be charitable something Feldman isn’t really capable of comprehending.
In the Frontline meeting Feldman repeated the uninformed mantra that Nick Griffin’s October 2009 appearance on BBC Question Time was “the start of the falling apart of the BNP”. While this nostrum fits the worldview of liberal cognoscenti who imagine all the Far Right (as opposed to quite a few and perhaps most) are inadequate crackpots with arguments so flimsy they cannot stand scrutiny, the reality was different. Far more important factors than Question Time in the BNP’s demise were (for example) likely Special Branch assets Sadie Graham/Matt Single leaking the party membership list in November 2008, and perhaps not unrelated protracted legal proceedings against the BNP by the Equality & Human Rights Commission, that dragged on until December 2010. Feldman went on to claim “these are not exactly media-savvy types. You ask them a question and it gets into Holocaust Denial, the KKK, Jews being from outer space”. Concerning being media-savvy, I suggest this digital expert looks up Griffin’s BBC Newsnight exchange with Jeremy Paxman 12/4/09. Racist certainly, but indubitably articulate: the coup de grace being Griffin’s rebuttal of his own 1996 quote by reference to changed BNP policy. The normal ferocious Paxman was pole-axed, as his prepared script hadn’t anticipated such a riposte. As for Question Time itself, the whole format (even seating arrangements) presented Griffin as the Christian (or perhaps at that time literate Pagan: he has taken up the cross since…) being mauled in the Coliseum before a baying mob. The fall-out was certainly negative for Griffin, but to date the BNP’s demise as starting then is a glib sound-bite, just not accurate.
Feldman describes an internal BNP Languages & Concepts Discipline Manual stating they weren’t racist as “astonishing” [xlv]. Yet this would only apply to somebody unaware just how much the Griffin BNP regime (and the Official NF earlier) repackaged racism in terms of ethnicity and sometimes culture rather than superiority. Is it really astonishing that a political party seeks to ensure its message to the media/electors is consistent and doesn’t back-fire? Isn’t that what spin-doctors do? What is not astonishing, sadly, is Feldman’s dishonest use of this document: describing it as part of Griffin “attempting to balance a front-stage stress on identity and mono-culturalism with back-stage activism by neo-fascist militants”, the Manual intended for use by “back-stage activists” [xlvi]. Readers who have never seen the Manual (produced in 2005 not 2009 as Feldman states) would take at face value the front-stage/back-stage analogy, assuming this Manual was part of a core policy of deception. They would be unaware, therefore, the Manual also states “we do not have a secret doctrine of ‘what we ‘really think’ which we conceal from the public. We make no secret of the fact that we are an ethno-nationalist party or that our ultimate goal is the orderly, lawful, humane and voluntary repatriation of the resident foreigners in the UK. Activists should never deny or squirm when asked about these things, but defend them with good conscience” [xlvii]. Again, as with the 1980s NF, there is scope for serious deconstruction of the BNP’s real ideology, and even this statement [xlviii]. Yet not to mention it because it undermines the front-stage/back-stage dichotomy is unscrupulous.
Feldman likes the front/back stage metaphor: elsewhere referring to Griffin calling for a focus on attacking Islam rather than Jews in “a lecture directed to the ‘backstage’ of the movement in 2005”.Dishonestly (again) omitting to tell readers this was reproduced on the very ‘front stage’ BNP web-site in 2006 (not in fact 2005) [xlix]. [SEE IMAGE BELOW]. Did he not even know this? Or did he know and consciously decide to lie about where Griffin said this? The probable answer is Feldman just doesn’t care, facts for him are mere ornamentation, and if they don’t fit the narrative, who cares anyway? As it happens, the article certainly isn’t pro-Zionist, and Griffin’s objection to demonising Jews (as opposed to Muslims) is primarily tactical, not ideological. Nonetheless, that is not the key point I am making here.
The BNP were unquestionably fascist: but in this endeavour of deconstruction Feldman’s front-stage/back-stage antics provide Vaudeville fare, whereas Shakespearean depth is needed. Feldman is a circus act, producing, mangling (and inventing) labels out of a hat like conceptual rabbits. Thus we find “the Far Right is a praxis of revanchist ethno-nationalism, hostile to many of the fundamental principles of liberal democracy“ [l]. Which territorial losses? When? How many principles are they hostile to? Which ones? And so on. He invents a new term, talking of the “near right media”, citing a front-page Daily Mail article published when Theresa May called the 2017 election captioned ‘Crush The Saboteurs’. He plaintively asks readers “what is one to think of the cover?” [li]. The answer is exactly what it says: May called an election to obtain a democratic mandate to enact the popular vote in the EU Referendum, against the wishes of many in the political class and academia too. How is that right wing? Has Feldman never heard of Occam’s Razor: no Far Right (or even near right) weapon by the way…
YET MORE SLOPPINESS: THE ARYAN STRIKE-FORCE
Feldman’s 2018 article described the ‘Aryan Strike Force’ (ASF) as one of “a number of secretive and violent groups”. Yet former DJ Nicky Davison and his milkman son appear to have been the only members seriously contemplating (perhaps) something really violent[lii]. The other two ex-ASF members convicted (Michael Heaton and Trevor Hannington[liii]), as discussed in NFB 12, didn’t get even that far. Feldman says of the ASF “at its peak, the movement purportedly had up to up to 350 activists world-wide, with perhaps two dozen street activists allegedly carrying out paramilitary-style ‘street ops’ to earn membership” [liv]. Did they have that many activists or not? Specifically, were there, or not, such activists? If so what were the ‘street ops’? It is reprehensible to make such statements in an academically-published book without evidence, and throwing in the word allegedly is no get out. No matter: by now the Feldman method should be crystal clear: concoct glib sound-bites, rely on a casual hurried reading of secondary sources, connect no dots, and selectively accept uncorroborated fascist statements at face value. Also, bear in mind Feldman’s Crown Prosecution Service pay-masters would not welcome expert evidence depicting supposed terrorists as serial Walter Mittys with a Swastika complex. The ASF trial in 2009 was only Feldman’s second outing as a CPS mouth-piece and he will surely have wanted to impress. An interesting contrast to Feldman’s ASF hyperbole is the 2011 article he co-wrote with Dr Paul Jackson, who has, shall we say, a grasp of neo-Nazism superior to Feldman’s. There, the ASF is described as “operating on meagre resources…financed in part via the online sale of merchandise, such as key rings and mouse mats”[lv]. Der Bruder Schweigen they certainly weren’t [lvi]. Nor indeed, does this article reference ‘paramilitary style street ops’, instead, mundanely “for the 18 months in which the Aryan Strike Force was operational, much of its energy appears to have been devoted to maintaining the movement’s website”[lvii]. One can reasonably surmise reporting paramilitary style street ops is absent because Jackson would not put his name to such uncorroborated claptrap, the original source a claim by defendant Mick Heaton[lviii]. A claim that should certainly not have been ignored, but instead critically analysed. You will now hopefully have gathered critical analysis is not Feldman’s strong point, nor indeed does he have an adequate grasp of exactly what constitutes modern neo-Nazism. Given that, it is at the very least interesting that Feldman has been accepted as an unchallenged expert witness by both prosecution and defence in so many recent trials of ‘Nazi terrorists’ (on which see NFB Issue 12 – Notes From The Borderland) The fact he is believed to be an outstanding expert in this field in academic circles too is slightly easier to explain: standards are very poor. And have been for a considerable time: see for example .REVIEW: DAVE RENTON ‘FASCISM: THEORY & PRACTICE – Notes From The Borderland and also ACADEMICS & THE BNP: NIGEL COPSEY & ALAN SYKES REVIEWED – Notes From The Borderland and of course not forgetting the inimitable recent rubbish by Mondon/Winter: Book Review: Aurelien Mondon & Aaron Winter ‘Reactionary Democracy’ Verso 2020 – Notes From The Borderland
As time permits, more reviews of research on this topic will appear, and too more of my own research. While Feldman may see himself as a victim, he is merely one dullard (albeit with a certain Vaudevillian flourish) among many others,,,
REFERENCES
[i] p.417-31 of the anthology of Feldman’s writings ‘Politics, Intellectuals, and Faith’ (hereafter PIF) Ibidem Stuttgart 2020 is a really poor attempt to define Beckett’s politics while refusing to engage with the claim he was apolitical (p.417). Debate with others clearly irks the Emeritus Professor. Noted.
[ii] @matthew_feldman Tweet 2/11/20: given Feldman’s Tweets have now been deleted, none are available to view.
[iii] Feldman’s CV up to 2019 is on the academicconsulting.co.uk web-site, also see his LinkedIn profile, now minus reference to CARR
[iv] Letter to the Editor: Matthew Feldman Responds to Peter Berard (lareviewofbooks.org).
[v] All Tweets dated 21/8/21, the Mondon parts accessible via @aurelmondon account.
[vi] Asa Winstanley ‘David Miller was cleared of anti-Semitism, leaked document shows’ electronicintifada.net 22/10/21.
[vii] See report of van der Zyl’s overt intervention in The Times 21/8/21 (Emma Yeomans)
[viii] ‘Bristol University Academic Unfairly Dismissed For Anti-Zionist Views’ BBC on-line 6/2/24
[ix] Aurelien Mondon Tweet 7/7/20. His book co-authored with Aaron Winter ‘Reactionary Democracy’ Verso 2020, attempts to elaborate this thesis (p.76-79).
[x] Matthew Feldman Tweet 25/11/19, also his earlier one carrying a legal threat, dated 10/10/19. A later Twitter exchange between Mondon, Younis and others (legitimately) speculates about just what the imagery used says about Feldman’s world-view (4/2/22).
[xi] Zelo Street Blog ‘Anti-Fascists Not Buying This CARR’ 8/5/19 reproduces the relevant exchanges
[xii] Matthew Feldman & John Pollard ‘The ideologues and ideologies of the radical right: an introduction’ Patterns of Prejudice 50:4-5 327-336 2016, quote from p.330.
[xiii] ‘Politics, Intellectuals and Faith’ Ibidem Stuttgart 2020 p.283
[xiv] for instance see the unusually detailed and informative pamphlet ‘Inside The National Front’ Sheffield Anti-Nazi League 1978, based on evidence provided about Sheffield branch by an anti-fascist infiltrator, complete with front cover photo of branch Secretary John Judge posing next to an Adolf Hitler portrait.
[xv] ‘National Front: What Is the Real Truth?’ (John Tyndall) NF 1978
[xvi] John Tyndall letter to Richard Edmonds 11/12/81 p.2.
[xvii] A situation alluded to in Blood & Honour magazine Series 2 issue 5 1995 p.2, the take-over started after the poorly-received (by C18) Ian Stuart Donaldson tribute issue produced by Paul Burnley (Bellamy) in October 1993
[xviii] ‘Blood & Dishonour’ p.3.
[xix] The Editorial in Blood & Honour magazine series 2 issue 9 p.2 December 1996 warned “readers and supporters of Blood & Honour to avoid the old B&H address as it is still not redirecting mail to us and never has, our address is the only B&H contact point”.
[xx] Highlander magazine issue 2 February 1997 p.2, see also Statewatch |’Danish Nazis Send Letter Bombs to UK’ (incorrectly dated 1/1/97)
[xxi] ‘An Interview With Matthew Feldman’ (James Dowthwaite) New American Studies Journal # 72 (Gottingen University Press) April 2022 p.13
[xxii] See Derek Holland ‘A Revolution Betrayed’ Part One in Nationalism Today (NF) 22 1984 p.12-13, and Part Two in Nationalism Today 23 1984 p.12-13.
[xxiii] Nationalism Today 23 p.13.
[xxiv] Nationalism Today (National Front) 42 February 1988 p.23, on which page see also ‘Rantings From The Bunker’.
[xxv] NF News 102 February 1988 p.6.
[xxvi] Published by Palgrave McMillan 2005: see my review in Lobster magazine 49 Summer 2005 p.32
[xxvii] See: Lobster 23 June 1992 p.15-19/Lobster 24 December 1992 p.15-21/Lobster 25 June 1993 p.16-20/Lobster 26 December 1993 p.13-18/Lobster 29 June 1995 p.3-9. My as yet unpublished PhD ‘Creating Political Soldiers? The National Front 1986-90’ (London University 2001) is currently unavailable on-line via the Ethos data-base due to a cyber-attack. Hopefully this situation will be resolved soon….
[xxviii] For example neither the 14/12/93 BNP Organisers Bulletin proscribing C18 nor a follow-up Tyndall Spearhead article (# 319 September 1995 p.6-10) takes issue with C18’s Nazism as such, merely speaking of “fringe opinion” (p.8).
[xxix] See for example any issue of the Liverpool BNP publication Liverpool Patriot and successor Liverpool Nationalist, all extensively advertising Nazi publications such as New Order or Phoenix. While Liverpool Nationalist issue 1 (February 1985 p.1) promised “in future issues…a front-page photo of general importance to both Nationalists and the public”—something hardly reflected in the front cover of issue 4 (September 1987), featuring ‘Rudolf Hess: Man of Peace’…
[xxx] For example, the important BNP ‘Activists Handbook’ (1994) under the sub-heading ‘People We Can Do Without’ criticises a “lunatic fringe…who speak incessantly of the hopelessness of our ever gaining power by lawful and constitutional means” (p.60).
[xxxi] Spearhead 325 March 1996 p.12.
[xxxii] An incident referred to (without naming Browning specifically) by John Tyndall Spearhead 319 September 1995 p.7
[xxxiii] Nick Griffin ‘Moving Forward For Good’ Identity magazine (BNP) # 21 June 2002 p.4-7, quotes from p.6
[xxxiv] See Nick Griffin’s (undated 1996) letter to M Renard ‘Music Radio Project’ (p.1) and the more detailed proposal by Griffin ‘Radio White Europe’ (early 1997 also undated) arguing “the collapse of C18 leaves a big gap in the music scene over here. Whoever fills it will have access to large sums of money and a significant amount of influence over the future political direction of the next generation of nationalist activists” (p.1-2). Such concerts “would provide a large body of able and aggressive youngsters with sound instincts and political opinions, something which would deflect the violent elements of the Left from our directly political operations” (p.4)
[xxxv] See for example Nick Griffin ‘The Incredible Shrinking Holocaust’ Rune magazine # 8 (Croydon BNP) 1994 p.6-9
[xxxvi] See on this the unsurpassed Martin Walker ‘The National Front’ Fontana 1977 p.68-86, also the anodyne (non-Nazi) coverage of the NF Founding Conference in Spearhead 17 Nov/Dec 1967 p.5-7. Neither did Tyndall’s widely-distributed credo (unlike earlier writings such as ‘The Authoritarian State’) ‘Six Principles of British Nationalism’ (Albion Press 1970 2nd edition) promulgate Nazism, and so on.
[xxxvii] Ibid. p.330
[xxxviii] PIF p.252
[xxxix] Matthew Feldman ‘The Radical Right in Britain’ gale.com./intl/essays 2018 (accessed 27/12/21)
[xl] Ibid.
[xli] Patriot issue 8 Summer 2001 p.12
[xlii] Matthew Feldman ‘The Radical Right in Britain’ gale.com./intl/essays 2018 (accessed 27/12/21)
[xliii] Frontline Club Event ‘Understanding Extremism. What Are the Real Dangers?/ 14/9/11, available on frontline.com .
[xliv] PIF p.245
[xlv] PIF p.245
[xlvi] PIF p.245
[xlvii] BNP ‘Language & Concepts Discipline Manual’ July 2005 Rule 5.
[xlviii] Especially useful here would be comparison with the BNP document written by Michael Newland in April 1999 during the Tyndall regime ‘Dealing with the media: Notes for BNP activists’.
[xlix] ‘By their fruits (or lack of them) shall you know them’ Nick Griffin on bnp.org.uk 21/3/06.
[l] PIF p.236
[li] PIF p.250
[lii] Northern Echo 4/5/10 (Gavin Engelbrecht)
[liii] Jewish Chronicle 24/11/16
[liv] PIF p.288. At the time of the trial, Feldman spoke of “ASF successor organisations…numbering in the few hundreds probably at the maximum” (quote from Simon Israel article, Channel 4 News on-line 24/6/10)
[lv] ‘The Aryan Strike Force: Britain’s Extreme Right-Wing and New Media’ Matthew Feldman & Paul Jackson p.47-58 in ‘Far-Right.Com’ edited by Paul Jackson & Gerry Gable RNM Publications Northampton September 2011, quote from p.55
[lvi] On which see Kevin Flynn & Gary Gerhardt ‘The Silent Brotherhood’ Signet (New York) 1995, and for a contrasting sympathetic perspective, Fafnir ‘The Secret Army’ published by Followers of the Way (Michigan) 1985
[lvii] Feldman/Jackson op. cit. p.55
[lviii] As reported in the Simon Israel article, Channel 4 News on-line 24/6/10
Click here for free access to O’Hara PhD on UK fascism
About The Author
