Share |

Monday 27 February 2012

Beyond the Fringe: building a credible nationalist Politics (Part I)


This article and a subsequent piece will endeavour to provide an outline of the reasons for the failure of nationalist politics in contemporary Britain, more specifically, in England, and suggest a means of breaking out of this impasse. In this initial instalment, the focus will be upon the weaknesses of the BNP and other aspirant nationalist parties, teasing out those factors that inhibit them from exerting popular electoral appeal. The second piece, to follow within the next week or so, will forward a concrete proposal for creating a popular credible nationalist politics in our country, outlining the policies and tactics required to realise the as yet largely untapped potential of nationalism.

The old Westminster parties are discredited, mistrusted and unpopular, offering voters nothing more than variations upon the same set of failed policies; our economy is in protracted and serious decline; our national independence is being hollowed out by the growing strength of transnational political and economic institutions and predatory transnational capitalism. Mass immigration continues apace, and the material and cultural fissures in our society grow ever wider. Against this backdrop, surveys reveal that nationalist policies are popular, but nationalist parties are not.

The time would thus appear ripe for nationalist politics to make a breakthrough, and yet nationalism in our country lies fractured and weak, beset with internal feuding and held back by excessive egotism. A myriad of small parties and groupuscules each pronounce their own way forward, and whilst the BNP continues its long and painful death under Nick Griffin, almost all bar the BNP remain unknown and invisible to the public at large; a near-eccentric irrelevance. In this context, it is understandable that a concept such as the Centre for Democratic Nationalism (CDN) should have arisen. However, from the perspective of the author, the CDN has made a strategic error, for it is clear from what has occurred thus far that it runs the risk of becoming a forum for the concerns of the small parties of the nationalist fringe, rather than serving as an incubator for a coherent and credible nationalist programme. Moreover, it needs to foster not an alliance of the obscure and the unknown, but the development of a professional and publicly palatable party. It is the contention of the author that no political breakthrough can be secured by pandering to the preoccupations of those on the margins, but that instead, nationalists should address themselves to the central concerns of the general public, and fashion their policies and strategies accordingly.

The Failure of the BNP

A few years ago, the BNP looked as if it held out the promise of breaking into the mainstream of British politics and becoming a credible nationalist party. This is certainly what its opponents feared. Looking back, 2009 marked its high watermark, with its first MEPs being elected in the June of that year, and party membership reputedly peaking at some 14,000. At that time, it possessed an opportunity of cultivating for itself not only a better public image, but also a strong base of public support. It could have, had it chosen the right tack, transformed itself into a significant political force with the potential for real mass growth and appeal. History however, was to determine otherwise.

Despite the protestations of its Chairman – Nick Griffin – and his apologists, the subsequent collapse in the BNP’s fortunes was not primarily due to concerted media and political opposition, but to problems within the party itself. These included a lack of internal party democracy; bad strategic decisions; the adoption of a number of outlandish policies peripheral to nationalist concerns, and the presence of some equally outlandish individuals with an inexplicable fetish for German National Socialism. This latter fact provided opponents of the BNP a very large stick with which to beat the party and its members repeatedly. Nick Griffin’s own failure to distance the BNP from Holocaust denial and his attempt to defend David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan on the BBC’s Question Time were both gratuitously unnecessary and disastrous for the image of the party. Then there were the avoidable and expensive court cases brought by Marmite and the EHRC, together with the repeated failure to submit party accounts on time, leading to the BNP’s contemporary indebtedness to the tune of somewhere between £850,000 and £1,000,000.

As a direct consequence of the excessive concentration of power in Griffin’s hands, the party was (and still is) bedevilled by clientelism, with promotion to the higher reaches of the party predicated more upon a slavish devotion to the person of the Chairman, than upon talent. The consequence of such a system has been that talent has not been recognised and utilised to best effect to forward party fortunes. Instead, mediocrities and oddballs have often been promoted to Griffin’s inner circle, Griffin himself seemingly being mistrustful and fearful of building a capable, talented and dedicated team of nationalists. Indeed, the situation is now such that a non-party member – Patrick Harrington – wields an undue degree of influence. Quite clearly, as pointed out by Andrew Brons and many others, Griffin has no intent of going anywhere. Providing that he can make a living out of his chairmanship of the party, it matters not to him whether it prospers electorally or otherwise.

A New Party

Having ascertained that neither Griffin nor Harrington are interested in necessarily either promoting the growth of the BNP or its electoral viability, it is clear that there is no point in simply waiting for Griffin to leave of his own volition. We do not have the luxury of time. Although Andrew Brons has forwarded a credible case against the formation of yet another nationalist party, it is the view of the author that this is in fact precisely what is required, whether or not our venerable MEP for Yorkshire and Humber would wish to assume the mantle of leadership himself. One thing however is clear: it would stand a much greater chance of success were he to provide it with his blessing. There are many good and dedicated nationalists who remain within the BNP or its penumbra, whose skills and enthusiasm should be put to positive and productive use in forwarding our cause. Without a practical goal to work towards, the risk is that they will leave nationalist politics altogether, or select a party that is not a good fit for their beliefs and principles. Besides these people, there are also those who have joined other parties who could be tempted back were a suitable vehicle to emerge.

Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to provide a straightforward definition of our cause. It is this: to gain recognition of the existence of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles, and in accordance with such recognition, to assert our right to national self-determination as set out in the UN Charter. Sovereignty inheres not within the person of the monarch or in parliament, but in the body of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles themselves, whether they should so choose to define themselves collectively as British, or separately as English, Scots, Welsh and Irish. Our purpose is to defend and forward the interests of our people, with a view to securing their social, political and economic well-being.

To join a new party it should only be necessary for the prospective member to pledge to forward the cause of establishing recognition of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles, and their right to political self-determination. This would constitute the sine qua non for admission. As such, the party should be open to all citizens of the United Kingdom irrespective of their background. Upon this one principle, all nationalist politics are predicated. Irrespective of differences in other spheres of policy, this is the one principle around which all nationalists can surely unite.

There has been much discussion concerning the toxicity or otherwise of the BNP brand. Certainly, Nick Griffin is as politically toxic as a politician can be, and under his leadership the BNP will never be anything other than a pariah party that people lend their vote to as a protest, holding their noses whilst they do so. As he will not relinquish control of the party, there is no alternative but to form another. The question therefore as to whether or not the BNP brand is permanently tarnished is not a relevant one. It is at this point, that many readers will cry “but what of other existing parties?! Might not they provide us with the vehicle that we require?” My answer to this is a categorical “no”.

Recently, the leadership of the Brent Group announced its decampment to the British Freedom Party, and others, as Brons has enumerated, have left at various times over the past 18 months to join the English Democrats and the National Front. Some have also managed to gain membership of UKIP, despite a formal ban on ex-BNP members, and others have joined smaller parties that realistically nobody outside of nationalist politics or those who closely observe it, such as its fervent opponents and a few academic specialists, has ever heard of. Moreover, the micro-parties on the fringe of the fringe would not attract public support if they were to be known, for after all, how much genuine appeal would a party that displays an SS Death’s Head on its homepage exert? Does an answer really need to be provided to that question? If it does, the proposal that will be outlined in the article subsequent to this one will not be to your liking, and it would be better for all concerned if you were to remain pursuing your current specialist personal interests at a far remove from the political fray.

The Weaknesses of existing Parties

Returning to the question of why none of the existing parties constitute suitable vehicles for our purpose, the reasons are numerous, yet each of the candidate parties possesses a distinctive weakness rooted in its core ideology which means that it will either never reach out beyond a certain level of support to gain electoral success at Westminster, or contains values at variance with our core principle: the recognition of the right of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles to political self-determination.

UKIP is the largest of the parties popularly perceived as to some extent possessing a nationalist, or at least patriotic, orientation. However, it proves to be unsuitable for our cause for many reasons. Ideologically it is nothing more nor less than a breakaway Thatcherite Atlanticist wing of the Conservative Party, and as such, can at best be considered a civic nationalist party; it is a class-based party that looks to the interests of transnational capital with a North American colouration. As such, its model of economic development is literally bankrupt. Furthermore, it does not recognise the concept of indigenous British peoples; its activist base is weak; its membership is highly aged; it is dominated by the person of its Chairman Nigel Farage; its MEPs do not serve the national interest when they have the opportunity to do so, and as mentioned earlier, ex-BNP members are banned. Most importantly, the general public see UKIP as a single-issue party standing for departure from the European Union, and thus do not consider voting UKIP other than in EU elections.

The English Democrats could to a certain extent be characterised as a little Englander version of UKIP, but with a more rounded economic policy and drawing a clear distinction between “the English” (ethnic) and “the people of England” (civic). Despite possessing a degree of public recognition in a handful of locations across the country – such as Doncaster where the Mayor is an English Democrat – they remain generally unknown, and their membership is small. Although some well-known former BNP members such as Eddy Butler and Chris Beverley have joined, the EDs have not experienced significant growth over the past year. The party appears to be treading water, and those voters who have heard of them tend to associate it with a single issue: an English parliament and a solution to the West Lothian Question. This is predictable enough, given that this is what Robin Tilbrook and most EDs seem to be most passionate about and to concentrate upon.

The British Freedom Party experienced a painful birth that led to the creation of a smaller entity without an ideological raison d’être named the Freedom Democrats. Nonetheless, the BFP attempted to formulate its own nationalist response to contemporary demographic realities through forwarding the concept of cultural nationalism, which in essence could be described as a form of beefed-up civic nationalism. Many of its other policies, good, and in some instances bad, were directly carried across from the BNP. As such, it did look as if it possessed some potential for growth and popular appeal. However, for a number of reasons this did not occur.

After almost a year in existence, BFP meetings with figures in the counter-jihad movement led to its relaunch under the chairmanship of Paul Weston last November, with caretaker leader Peter Mullins standing down. This shift however seems to have created an even greater ideological muddle, with the BFP issuing a seemingly random melange of ‘policies’ in its 20 Point Programme, a number of which were mutually incompatible. In addition, this ‘programme’ appeared to be an unnatural graft onto underlying BFP policies, and must therefore be assumed to have sprung from the imagination of the new Chairman. Owing to Weston’s personal preoccupation with Islamism and Islamisation, the BFP has fallen into the trap of fixating upon Islam, with little attention being paid to other policy issues. Whilst this focus has lent itself to a natural yet awkward tactical tie-up with the EDL, such a narrow focus will not yield general electoral success.

Weston too has acknowledged that his new model BFP is essentially “UKIP but we will talk about Islam”. That, primarily, is why Weston left UKIP: other than Lord Pearson it did not take a clear position against Islamisation. Were it to do so, my opinion is that Weston would fold the BFP tomorrow and return to UKIP. If the Tories were to ever become anti-Islamisation and pro-EU withdrawal, he would in an instant join the Conservative Party. The BFP is thus driving itself into a cul-de-sac. There remains room for party growth, but ultimately it will stall and fail, stunted by its narrow vision. It does not represent the way forward for nationalism, for although the concerns of the counter-jihad movement and nationalism overlap to a certain extent, they each represent a distinct position. The BFP is at risk of becoming a small British Neocon party.

The BFP, if people have heard of it, has thus come to be thought of as “the anti-Islam party”, just as UKIP is known as the “anti-EU party” and the EDs “the English parliament party”. All three overly fixate upon a single issue which hamstrings their electoral prospects. As for the National Front, its brand is more toxic than that of the BNP, and in public perception is simply known as “the racist party”, thus signifying electoral suicide. Any further discussion of the NF is superfluous.


Having thus surveyed the field of existing contenders for the nationalist vote in Britain and England, it is time to draw this piece to a close. The true conclusion to this article will be provided in the next two instalments, in which the focus will shift to providing a positive proposal that it is hoped readers will find both appealing and practicable. Part II will deal with policy, whereas Part III will deal with practical matters relating to strategy, tactics and tone. After a period of dispiriting setbacks, there is a basis for cautious optimism grounded in a realistic analysis of the challenges that we face. Success yet lies within reach.


  1. A very interesting read.

    Ivan Winters
    Democratic Nationalists

  2. Excellent, thought provoking and, dare I say it, politically correct (in the right sort of way!) article. Congratulations! I look forward to the next installment!

    Kevin Scott

  3. I have been banging on about a new Party for a very long time but as I am anon-entity and haven't a big mouth and just a deep pocket, the megalomaniacs in charge do not listen.
    I have also attempted through my website to reach out beyond 'the fringe' -
    Bert Leech

  4. This is a quality piece of analysis and I am looking forward to the suggests for future development.

  5. Ivan, Kevin, Bert and David: thank you all for your positive remarks. I hope that the second instalment does not disappoint. Incidentally Bert, I have added a link to your website - England is Ours - in my 'Sites of Interest' section.

  6. I also think that this article is a valuable contribution to the debate. Well done, whoever wrote it (I don't know who the author is).

    1. Thanks Adrian. I think that it is perfectly possible for a new party, should the concept I outline prove popular, to field candidates in local elections next year and the EU elections in 2014.

  7. A truly first class article. The author writes with authority and an understanding of the issues; his contribution is a worthy addition to the debate.

    In particular, he is correct about the deep-rooted problems that afflict the BNP. I raised many of these points at the Leicester meeting last October. Griffin could have solved the problem for the most part by introducing internal democracy so that local branches and regions possessed the ability to identify and appoint local talent to elected positions. He failed to do so and dragged his feet after the instruction to introduce a new Constitution in Dec 2010. Members then drifted away and, after plenty of cheating amongst his sidekicks, Griffin won the leadership election with the smallest margin. At that point, most honourable leaders with the interests of the movement foremost in mind would either have resigned in favour of the runner-up or appointed the runner-up as Vice-Chairman.

    A party of 1000 members could be managed from the top, downwards. A party of 14000 required both delegation and a bottom up approach.

    This absence of common sense pointed to two causes: the complete absence of any business expertise or ability at the top of the party and, second, the desire to run the party as a personal fiefdom. The result was that the best human resources were lost to the party and never exploited.

    The art of delegation, moreover, was never understood by the leadership who, it seems, have achieved nothing of any merit whatsoever in their lives and are persona non grata in all circles excepting their own cliques.

    Starting a new party, of course, is easier said than done. In my opinion, to enable it to gain critical momentum, it requires between 1200-1500 members and/or £100,000 by way of essential capital.

    Finally, I may observe that the quality of your article, above, demonstrates yet again that all the best people have deserted Griffin. They were, for the most part, never recognised and their talents never employed. What a waste and what an indictment.

    1. Andrew, I am glad that you find the above piece a useful contribution to the debate on the contemporary state of nationalism. Please feel free to post this elsewhere, if you think it appropriate.

      Thank you also for outlining your observations on the mismanagement of the BNP, and highlighting aspects of an alternative professional managerial approach to running a party. Such an approach would be essential for the emergence and functioning of any credible and worthy new political vehicle.

      With respect to your observations on numbers and viability, I think that your assumptions regarding attaining a critical mass for membership are correct, but providing that a sound set of rational resonant policies are set in place, together with an effective organisational approach and a clear plan for initial growth, this critical mass should be achievable. If a sufficiently motivated and dedicated team could be assembled to devise a cohesive plan and drive this forward, there is no reason why it should not succeed.

  8. In my indecent haste to put in my own ha'puth I forgot to congratulate you on such an uplifting article.
    I cannot wait to read the thrilling final instalment!
    I am extremely flattered that my own site is worthy of your recommendation. When I am able to contact my webmaster ( because I am virtually PC-illiterate ) I shall also put a link on to your site. I make comments which need to be fleshed out by sensible, educated people like yourself and your articles are required reading by all true Nationalists.
    A cautionary tale to finish with : Apart from screaming out for a new Party, I've long advocated co-operation between like-minded Parties and groups. Without naming names, one Party is standing a candidate against another whose Party is on your list in a coming election.
    You have a monumental task ahead of you.
    You have my goodwill and respect.
    Bert Leech

    1. Thank you again Bert. It is heartening to get some positive feedback, for as you can imagine, I have also received a fair amount of abuse on here over the years. I am still composing Part II, but as I work full time, it is taking a little longer than I would like. Hopefully though, it should be posted here sometime this Wednesday evening at the latest.

      With respect to parties on the list standing against each other, it is not a surprise. In which particular election is this happening?

      As for the task ahead, it is somewhat daunting, but someone has to get the ball rolling, because unfortunately I do not see anything else positive being done at present, and time is running short. Your goodwill, and that of others, is what will sustain this effort. Although things may look grim at the moment, I am actually of the opinion that we have been presented with the opportunity of starting afresh, and getting things right from the outset. We need not be encumbered any more by the mistakes of the past.

    2. Sir,
      It would be immensely useful to have an e-mail to contact you - not for an ulterior motive - I am not a devious person -that is why I reveal my name but I fully understand why others cannot.
      The reason I would like one is that to reveal on your website the identity of the two opposing Parties would put me in the same camp as those people 'dividing and ruling'
      It is so difficult to be brief when there is much to talk about but two quick points :
      Just 1400 or more X £75 membership fee = £100,0000
      Ideology or electability ?
      Bert Leech

    3. Bert, I am glad that you respect the confidentiality of such sensitive issues, and therefore do not wish to divulge anything publicly on this blog. Please feel free however, to leave me your email address in the comments section, for as I always moderate comments to avoid spam, I can keep your email confidential and then email you directly.

      As for "ideology or electability", pragmatism dictates electability: politics is the art of the possible, and that is what interests me.

  9. I have not been on the site for a few weeks, but I have been catching up this evening.

    I was going to comment on the Make Bradford British one too, but there wasn't really much more I could add to it. I may come back to it later.

    I thought I would settle down and read this one first though, because I suspected it might be the one you had told me about earlier (am I right?).

    I think your summary outlines of the different elements on the table are quite concise and explanatory.

    I am glad you recognise the differences between the fundamentals of the parties on offer and can explain it in an easy way to others (primarily UKIP), because I would have probably written a massive thesis on it and thus would have failed to make the point.

    The part about various other parties being niche and not having the potential for a 'catch all' (which, rightly or wrongly, I personally saw the BNP as being with its comprehensive manifesto and deep roots in nationalist principles and ideology) is something which strikes me also.

    I am not sure where part two will head (or whether I may like some of the suggestions, given my ideological disposition!!) but 'part one' has been a good read, and some of the comments - such as Andrew Moffats - provide extra insight into some of the internal struggles as to why things have not been developing.

    I have a four-part series penned on my own bloggers draft facility (which I am tinkering with and musing over before publishing) in relation to changing the nationalist culture and paradigm. I will probably be another week before I push them all out.

    I have said much of it before, and they may be a complete load of off-the-wall nonsense, and if they are, then I would rather be told than politely humoured - lol.

    In the meantime, I look forward to having part two of your viewpoints to mull over. They may be complimentary to my own, or give me something further to consider.

    It is important that we are asking ourselves where we are going and questioning what we need to build for the future.

    We are in a lull right now, and deciding on these things during this period is time well spent if it means a move to greater success later.

    Some ideas or suggestions we all have as individuals may not be of this planet, realistic, practical, or achievable. Yet, some of them might be worth adopting.

    Getting the deck of cards out and choosing our best hand - with the input of those who are truly involved (and not just keyboard warriors like myself) must be a good idea, rather than being complacent and banging our heads on the wall with approaches and techniques that are proven not to work.

    1. Good to see you back here BA. I am afraid that I must be brief in my reply tonight, as I am still writing the second instalment and am beginning to flag as the evening advances. It will be interesting to see what you have to say about such matters on your blog once you have completed your projected series.

  10. Brilliant article.

    Personally I throw my lot in with British Freedom, as it seems to have the most rounded set of policies (are you sure you've revisited the 20-point plan recently)?

    The BNP exists for protests votes, true, but more specifically they are a place where Labour voters go when they get tired of the Islamicisation foisted upon them in the name of mulitculturalism. We need to address a range of issues, true - and I believe BF does - but we also need to realise that until beard-and-burqa imperialism is addressed head on the other problems will remain intractable.

    1. Thanks Joe.

      I haven't looked at the British Freedom Party's 20-point plan for the last week or so. Has anything significant changed? Have you read my piece that addresses it point by point?

      Like you, I am no fan of Islamisation, yet it needs to be addressed as part of a wider policy mix rather than being made the main party focus, for people who have had no direct experience of this phenomenon would think such a focus eccentric to put it mildly.


Comments that call for or threaten violence will not be published. Anyone is entitled to criticise the arguments presented here, or to highlight what they believe to be factual error(s); ad hominem attacks do not constitute comment or debate. Although at times others' points of view may be exasperating, please attempt to be civil in your responses. If you wish to communicate with me confidentially, please preface your comment with "Not for publication". This is why all comments are moderated.