When writing, it frequently happens that the author’s intent changes as a piece evolves, and whereas Beyond the Fringe was originally intended to consist of two parts, it has in fact become three. Thus, in this second instalment, the author provides a sketch of the main policy focus that a new party should adopt, without intending to in any way provide a full manifesto. What follows is still very much a work in progress, and the lack of elaboration relating to some key points that will only be alluded to is not meant to signify their lack of importance, for they are key to any nationalist party’s programme, but to indicate that the general public will know them to be a given, so it will not be necessary to belabour them.
Much of what follows will be in tune with the thinking of most nationalists, although some of the general approach to macroeconomic policy may polarise sentiment to a certain extent. The peripheral and damaging concerns held by a minority of nationalists will not be addressed here, not because the author thinks it expedient not to mention them, but because such policies and attitudes are held to be ill founded and not conducive to the public good.
Policies in and of themselves are all very well, but they will be worthless if nobody gets to hear of them. In the third and final instalment of this series therefore, attention will be turned to the potential baseline of support for a nationalist party; strategy; tactics and communicating a consistent message employing language of an appropriate tone and focus.
In Part I it was noted that UKIP, the English Democrats, the BFP and the National Front had each come to be associated in the public mind with one particular policy concern which limits their prospects for electoral success, but the focus proposed for a new party here will, if it does lead to it being identified with any one policy, serve only to assist it, for it should focus upon economic nationalism. If it is to hold genuine mass appeal, it must offer a credible prospect of prosperity, as well as personal liberty and security. The cracks in the globalist economic system are becoming ever more apparent, so much so, that even some mainstream politicians are now playing with the rhetoric of national interest and “rebalancing the economy”, with a greater focus upon domestic manufacturing. However, their policies and proposals continue to entrench and accelerate globalisation, whereas the task of a new party should be to reverse this process.
Focusing on the economy
Dogmatic hostility to state intervention in economics is as myopic as dogmatic hostility to all forms of private enterprise. A new party should not pursue an economic policy based upon Thatcherite ideology, but upon pragmatism, learning from the successes of the East Asian developmental state, as well as seeking to draw upon approaches offered by distributism.
Whereas the interests of the nation have been subordinated to the state, those of the state must in future be subordinated to the nation. Likewise, a new nationalist party should set out to reorder the economic foundations of the nation, making economic policy subordinate not to the imperatives of transnational financial institutions and corporations, but to the needs of the nation. As such, a National Investment Bank (NIB) should be established that focuses upon raising funds for investment in the following undergirding key aspects of infrastructure: energy, new technologies and transport. To raise capital, encourage savings and ensure that the public has a stake in this undertaking, future tax-exempt investments in the form of stocks and shares ISAs should be restricted to the financing of national projects funded by the NIB.
A credible nationalist party therefore will focus upon economics: the need for energy security; opposition to offshoring; the promotion of domestic manufacturing; legal obligations to privilege nationals in the sphere of employment; crackdowns on corporate tax evasion; the revitalisation of our countryside through the promotion of rural employment in agriculture, conservation and afforestation; the promotion of social enterprises and mutuals with a focus upon increasing the well-being of local communities and the nation as a whole. Given the anti-globalisation sentiment of many members of the younger generation, nationalists should aim to tap into this and show them that nationalism, rather than other ideologies, offers the positive solutions to the economic problems that we face.
One criticism of the BNP’s last General Election Manifesto that any new party needs to take seriously relates to budgetary costings, which its detractors correctly noted did not add up. Any party that hopes to win the trust of voters must not make budgetary commitments based upon spurious assumptions about the amount of money that can be saved through decommitting from foreign aid and leaving the EU. Budgetary proposals must be robust and able to withstand the scrutiny of critics. If they are not, any party forwarding them does not deserve the trust of the public.
Securing national energy supplies
This is vital both in ensuring national prosperity and security, and so can legitimately be considered to be an integral part of both economic and defence policy.
North Sea oil and gas production are in long-term decline, and as a consequence, we are importing a growing percentage of our energy requirements from abroad, not only worsening our balance of payments deficit, but also making ourselves more vulnerable to fluctuations in international prices as well as to potential disruptions in supply. Clearly, new domestic energy resources need to be developed, and existing renewable technologies are not fit to meet the demands placed upon them. Moreover, carbon taxes and the renewable levy on domestic energy users are inflating our national costs of production, thereby undermining our international competitiveness and placing a strain on domestic budgets. Thankfully, real alternative energy sources exist, and others should become available in the coming decades.
As the existing mainstream parties are dragging their heels with respect to energy policy, this offers a contemporary forward-thinking nationalist party the opportunity to champion a genuine alternative course, thereby capturing the public’s imagination and exerting mass appeal. The party should pledge to research the non-fossil fuel energy resources of the future such as nuclear fusion, thorium reactors and hydrogen, whilst in the immediate future examine the feasibility of both fracking for natural gas and the relative merits of revitalising our national coal industry utilising either carbon capture and storage in power generation, or coal gasification. In the 1980s it was estimated that we possessed circa 300 years worth of coal reserves beneath our feet; moreover, diesel can be synthetically produced from coal if need be, thereby providing an alternative to oil imports. The aim of energy policy should be to provide for maximum self-sufficiency, and to utilise available reserves of coal, gas and oil for national use rather than sale on the international market which would lead to their rapid depletion.
Revitalising our domestic energy sector would generate tens of thousands of new jobs bringing wealth back to areas of our country that have been blighted since the pit closures, creating spin-off employment in the heavy-machinery supply chain and in other businesses required to support the sector. Prosperity could thereby be restored to areas of long-term unemployment and deprivation, creating a virtuous circle of development. It would also help us to choke off the flow of capital to Middle Eastern states such as Saudi Arabia that use their money to spread Salafist Islam in our country and others. Without oil, these theocratic rentier states would count for next to nothing politically, and their malign global influence would collapse into insignificance.
In the interim, one of the factors feeding through into inflation and increasing general costs for business and consumers is the high price of petrol and diesel, the bulk of which is accounted for by tax. Planned increases in duty should be scrapped and the existing level reconsidered. High fuel prices have a particularly negative impact upon the lives of low-paid rural workers, who have no option but to drive owing to the absence of public transport.
Embracing cutting edge technologies
A key element of economic policy should be the creation of conditions in which new technologies and industries can establish themselves and thrive. The potential of biotech needs to be harnessed to improve health, develop new fuels, deal with pollution and increase productivity. Stem cell therapies hold massive promise. The development and application of new advanced materials, such as graphene, must help drive a new industrial revolution. Science and technology must be at the core of policy thinking. If they are not, then other nations such as China will take the lead.
Some take a mistrustful view of science, arising from the particularistic interests of lobbies, whether they are corporations, governments or transnational political actors. However, whilst there can be no doubt that certain corporations have sought to dangerously abuse GM technologies by attempting to patent seeds and livestock, this is a separate issue entirely from the science itself. It should be illegal for companies to take out such patents, but research into the prospective benefits of aspects of GM should be encouraged, whilst ensuring that strict safeguards are drawn up in relation to any subsequent introduction of resultant products into the food chain.
There is a genuine environmental crisis and a new party should highlight this. It however, is not climate change, for if anthropogenic climate change is indeed a reality, it is simply a by-product of global overpopulation. This must be constantly reiterated along with the corresponding fact that the UK has no further carrying capacity. Thus to take further immigrants is both irresponsible and, in the long term, dangerous.
Although a new party should certainly highlight where the climate change issue is being abused by political parties and the Government to further objectives which are against our national interest, it should not therefore draw the erroneous conclusion that the science is basically bogus. After all, why should the ‘sceptics’ be adjudged to be any less partisan or more objective than those who possess a mainstream position, given that the former are often funded by powerful oil companies that have a vested interest in opposing the current orthodoxy? Simply because climate change is being used by our mainstream parties to justify ramping up foreign aid, domestic deindustrialisation and introducing ‘green’ taxes does not imply that the science is necessarily being invented to justify policy. All it means is that our government, as well as the governments of many other countries, sees this as a useful pretext for implementing other agendas that they already possess, such as creating transnational institutions of political and economic governance. The party should therefore not adopt a strong position either way on the scientific basis of climate change, but should constantly and unfailingly highlight the political abuse of the climate change rationale for implementing undesirable policies that work directly against the national interest.
As our domestic oil reserves are declining and international supplies are growing less secure and more expensive, developing new technologies not dependent upon oil are good in and of themselves, for they reduce national vulnerability to external geopolitical factors and will be cleaner. If other countries are convinced of the necessity of introducing such technologies, why should we not profit from this by selling new technological expertise and products? Furthermore, moving away from an oil dependent economy will help to undermine the source of vast wealth underpinning Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia which ultimately funds global jihad and Islamic proselytisation, including in the UK.
Demographic Policy and Immigration
A popular nationalism will address and solve the problems of an overburdened transport infrastructure, a shortage of housing and pressure upon our countryside by implementing policies that will at first stabilise and then encourage a reduction in our population. This can be achieved through a combination of strict immigration controls and facilitating the departure of those who lack ethnic roots in the UK who actively identify against the native population. Additional resources should be devoted to combating illegal means of entry to the country such as sham marriages, organised people trafficking and general lone entry by foreign nationals. Punitive sanctions should be put in place for those who organise both sham marriages and people trafficking, with the costs incurred in the expatriation and resettlement of illegal immigrants being funded by the liquidation of the assets of those found guilty of these crimes. If the individuals involved in the organisation of such activity also happen to lack ancestral roots in the United Kingdom, they and their families should be expatriated to their ancestral familial homeland with no right of appeal.
These sanctions should serve as an exemplary deterrent to all who would consider engaging in crimes of this type, as well as provide a means of humanely resettling those individuals who have found themselves victims of the international sex trade. Other illegal immigrants who have often paid a great deal of money to traffickers frequently find themselves in a miserable position once in the UK, often living in squalid sheds erected in back gardens and leading a twilight existence because their papers have been purposefully destroyed. They should be humanely expatriated using funds acquired from the liquidation of the assets of their landlords or gangmasters. Their experience and the headlines generated by their removal would send the desired message to others considering the same route: you will be sent back, papers or no papers.
Criminals of foreign extraction should be routinely deported to their countries of origin, for their crimes are only compounded by the taxpayer having to fund their incarceration here.
Another undesirable and dubious phenomenon that is currently legal but underpins the growth of parallel societies separate to the host nation, is chain migration, whereby relatives of those who have acquired citizenship are then able to settle in the United Kingdom and in turn gain citizenship themselves. Often this is said to be in accordance with their "human right" to a family life. Any such right to "family reunion" should apply only in the ancestral ethnic homeland of the parties in question.
Deportation should be the fate of those individuals (together with their families) who advocate and agitate for the undermining of our freedoms and system of law, by either calling for the recognition and operation of parallel legal structures and exemptions, or for the imposition of their preferred legal system upon the host society. Clearly, the views of such people are at variance with the country in which they currently reside, and thus it would be preferable for all if they were to be returned to their ancestral familial homelands, where legal and social codes are in accordance with their cultural preference. Similarly, those few indigenous members of the population who have gone over to this way of thinking should also be encouraged to leave.
Legitimate new arrivals ought to contribute to society before being able to claim full citizenship rights, such as the vote or the right to state benefits (e.g. housing benefit, unemployment benefit and free medical care). A qualifying period could thus be introduced, say three years for someone from within the EU or from Australia, New Zealand and Canada, and five years for those from elsewhere. Whereas in an ideal world of infinite resources it would be good to provide such entitlement for all, in practical terms, particularly during our current era of economic contraction and mass indebtedness, native citizens themselves are not being provided with the services that they deserve. Given that the number of prospective immigrants is many times the size of the existing population of the United Kingdom, measures must be put in place to ensure that this human tide is turned.
Provision for the Elderly
Many of our old people have been ill rewarded for their years of labour, and have nothing more than the state pension as a means of subsistence. Although additional benefits can be claimed, it is demeaning that their incomes should be topped up in this fashion. A new party should therefore pledge to increase the basic state pension to a level that renders claiming for top-up benefits obsolete, the precise figure to be ascertained following a review of overall budgetary expenditure and taxation.
In recent years, many people of working age and those yet to enter the workplace have been notified that they will have to work longer than the current generation before qualifying for a state pension owing to an increase in general longevity. However, at the same time that people are being compelled to work for longer, millions of young people lack employment. A situation is therefore being created in which millions wish to retire, but cannot, whilst millions who wish to work, cannot. An obvious solution would be to return the standard retirement age to a uniform 65, which would please both the old and the young, for although longevity has increased, the number of healthy years spent in retirement has remained roughly the same. People should therefore be given the opportunity to retire at 65, but their right to continue working, should they wish to do so, ought to be protected. The money saved on benefits currently paid to the young unemployed would pay for returning the pensionable age to 65.
Freedom of Speech and Expression
One of the most notable characteristics of life in the contemporary United Kingdom is the degree to which traditional freedoms relating to thought, speech and expression have been systematically eroded under successive governments irrespective of their party political complexion. Thus we have seen laws introduced against "hate crimes" defined in such a manner as to make them almost all-encompassing, particularly with the catch-all term of "racism", which has come to be defined as existing if the victim of a particular crime perceives the intent of the perpetrator as emanating from, or being intensified by, a "racist" motive. In practice, together with its twin nebulous concept of "institutional racism", allegations of "racism" can be deployed by non-indigenes to stigmatise and destroy the reputation of any indigenous citizen. Such laws need to be replaced with legislation that guarantees the physical security of the person, and penalises only concrete threats or the real intent to instigate violence against an individual or group.
The Human Rights Act should be repealed, owing to the widespread abuses that have taken place in its name. It should be replaced with legislation that contains adequate provision for guaranteeing the rights and physical safety of citizens.
All legislation relating to "religious hatred" and the promotion of "diversity" needs to be repealed. Individuals should be protected by the law, but religious systems of belief and other ideologies should be open to full public criticism and ridicule; it should not be a crime for someone to be offended. A new party should be secular, which is to say, committed to keeping religion and politics separate, but advocate the public celebration of our traditional national festivals that have deep roots in Christianity, paganism and the natural passage of the seasons. People of any religion and none can share in these; otherwise, people’s religious beliefs and affiliations, or lack of them, are a matter for personal conscience.
Selection in the workplace should be based exclusively upon the relative merits of candidates providing that they are citizens of this country. Skin colour should not come into it, for after all, if someone capable of a non-indigenous background is singled out for preferential treatment does this not feel demeaning? Does not the existing legislation actually patronise such people, and create potential mistrust and ill feeling between them and indigenous colleagues where none need exist if it were not for such legislation? Would it not be better for all concerned if the nagging thought that “they only got that job because of their ethnicity” were to be removed from the equation?
The United Kingdom in its current form may not exist by 2015, depending upon the outcome of any referendum on Scotland’s independence. However, irrespective of the result, the West Lothian Question does need to be addressed. At a minimum, Scottish, Welsh and Irish MPs should not be able to vote on matters at Westminster – such as education – that concern only England.
Of more pressing concern than the above however, is the UK’s membership of the European Union. In order to regain sovereignty and effective border controls, a departure from the EU is essential.
A formal written constitution would include recognition of the existence of the indigenous peoples of the United Kingdom and their concomitant rights to national self-determination and primacy within their own homelands.
A non-interventionist neutral foreign policy should be advocated which would entail leaving NATO as it no longer meets our national security requirements. Positive and close relations should be maintained with European countries, as well as with our daughter societies – Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
This should be determined strictly by the need to protect the homeland, overseas British territories and shipping. All armed forces should be withdrawn from Afghanistan, and a policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states should be adopted. Military interventionism as an instrument of foreign policy as employed under recent Labour and Conservative administrations should be abandoned. Islamism should be tackled by the intelligence services and the police. A review of defence requirements should lead to the creation of a military better adapted to the future direction of foreign and domestic policy outlined above.
The suggested policy focus could be summed up in three words: prosperity, liberty and security. This should provide the basis for a popular and resonant nationalist programme that would allow a newly constituted party to exert considerable public appeal. No such programme could be implemented without the UK’s exit from the EU, although it would be crucial for a new party to reiterate that it is anti-EU but not anti-European, for the two are quite distinct.
The globalist parties – Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat (as well as the Greens) – have all advocated and promoted the hollowing out of our democracy and sovereignty by using the state to further the interests of transnational corporations and finance, none of which can be held to account by our people. It will be essential to introduce legislation that removes the possibility of foreign takeovers of viable businesses, and the large-scale foreign direct investment that does take place must be subject to in-depth scrutiny. Some, such as by Nissan and Honda, is productive for the country, unlike the recently announced Arab financing of housing and infrastructure in Liverpool, which is parasitic. The latter needs to be curtailed.
In sum, focusing upon a distinctive nationalist economic agenda would present a new party with the most effective means of making headway. Whilst still retaining policies committed to ending mass immigration and multiculturalism, solutions to our economic problems are key. Much has been left out of this policy discussion, including pivotal areas such as health, education and law and order, but these will be revisited at a later date. The primary intent of this piece has been to forward the case for focusing upon the economy as a viable strategy for gaining public support, rather than providing a fully-fledged overview of policy. It is now up to readers to consider the points raised here, and to decide whether these suggestions possess merit.
Sir There is so much to absorb that to give a definitive response would be foolhardy and dishonest. The unarguable point that this poor working-class viewer wishes to make is that the article is a vision of the future, truly a blueprint for a dynamic new Nationalist Party.ReplyDelete
Unfortunately, we do not live in the future.
And I'm Nick Clegg's uncle if you think you can expel the mongrel hordes marauding through our country in such an easy, seamless manner.
But what a brilliant scholarly contribution.
Thank you so much
Bert, firstly, I must apologise for not having emailed yet, and I hope that you haven’t interpreted this as a sign of rudeness. It’s simply a consequence of the fact that the email address you left didn’t work. Should I try contacting you via ‘England is Ours’?Delete
I am pleased that the second instalment proves to your liking. It is, I think, a policy agenda that could reach out to many members of the public who wouldn’t normally dream of voting for a nationalist party. Part III is already written, but I will not be posting it until late in the week, to give people time to consider and digest the content of this particular piece. If it too is positively received, then people will need to consider how these proposals ought to be enacted, and this is certainly a dialogue that this blog would wish to facilitate.
Bert, you need to change your attitude. This type of language is one of the reasons why nationalism never advances beyond the fringe. Its not acceptable. Its the 21st century. Try to be respectful and then maybe we can start to make progress.
Man from Brum, I agree that using appropriate language is important, as you will see from Part III. The wartime slogan "careless talk costs lives" could be adapted to "careless talk costs votes".Delete
I have never read a piece so in tune with my sentiments. My wife asked if I had written it.ReplyDelete
I only wish I had the language and logic skills to write such a well argued article.
I can not fault it in any way, but how do we get others in the Nationalist fold to follow and propogate these essential ideas and policies for our country as we must if we are to save it?
Can you not be party leader?
Lankypatriot, Wigan & Leigh blog
LP, thank you for your compliments. I am relieved to see that there are others out there such as yourself who understand what is required, and where nationalism has gone wrong in the past. As mentioned above, Part III will be posted later this week, and if you, and a good number of others, also find that to your liking, then clearly consideration will need to be given to more practical matters with a view to realising such a vision. How do we get others in the nationalist fold to follow? Through reason. If not, then there should be many other people entirely new to politics who may enthusiastically lend their support to such a programme.Delete
Bravo, I've been thinking along similar lines for over a decade now, though was sadly unable to articulate my thoughts with the clarity you have here.ReplyDelete
Unfortunately what you've written is the easy part, getting a party set up or to adopt those policies is going to be very difficult, though I suspect that with the decline of the mainstream parties, sooner or later someone will go for it.
Thanks QM. You are right: thinking and writing is the easy part, whereas organising and implementing is the difficult element of the equation. The latter is a daunting task, but I am of the opinion that, with the participation and backing of the right people, it can be done.Delete
as part of the defence policy review, i would also suggest leaving the UN, as it attempts on a global scale, what the eurocrats are trying to do.ReplyDelete
If Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom, it would perhaps have interesting implications for our seat on the UN Security Council. Russia of course inherited the USSR's, but would England inherit the UK's?Delete
This is excellent. Lots of good English Common Sense. Let us hope that this will be taken up by Nationalists who are in a position to do something with it. I await your next piece with interest.ReplyDelete
Thanks Mo. Thus far, it has only reached a relatively limited readership, so it needs more exposure to help these proposals gather momentum. If you should come across a forum or comments section where you think it would be appropriate to provide a link to this piece with some explanatory information, please do so.Delete
Provision for the Elderly.ReplyDelete
It sounds nice, but this type of entitlement scheme is exactly what is bankrupting the US government, and it will bankrupt any nation over time. The Australian scheme is based on private retirement accounts (with tax-preferred status). These are sustainable.
Grand plans for a man who dares not speak his name.ReplyDelete
I wouldn't claim to be a Spaghetti Western star.Delete
You would need to aspire to be a star if you want to lead the nationalist movement. I heard on Radio 4 recently of this new concept of "reluctance to rule". This is understandable perhaps in a movement more known for its in-fighting than unity, and the viciousness and nastiness of white nationalists against other white nationalists.Delete
What the nationalist movement needs is genuine leadership. How sad to see so many nationalists actually scorning the idea and thinking they can have some dull, plodding caretaker leader to lead them victory.
Caretaker leaders are the luxury of established parties and is not the sort of thing a fledgling nationalist movement can even think of affording.
I had the idea of electing a rival nationalist leader to rival Nick Griffin and to rival and eventually replace the BNP. This can be done outside the party since there are more nationalists outside the party than there are in the BNP and the NF and the other micro-parties.
has a few ideas.
Claire you make a very valid point ref to the behaviour of the nationalist movement. This happens not just towards each other but also a dismissive attitude towards the general public. Personal respect, reasonable discussion and interaction are crucial for any political party to gain credibility and attract new members. I remain in hope.Delete
Man from Brum, the behavioural issue is an important one and has been addressed in Part III posted today: http://durotrigan.blogspot.com/2012/03/beyond-fringe-building-credible_16.htmlDelete
However, my observations regarding behaviour also apply to Claire, of whom I would wish to ask the following question: do you really expect me to seriously entertain advice from, or trust a person who chooses to employ a smiley Hitler as their twitter (http://twitter.com/#!/1party4all) icon? I may have chosen a goat, but goats are renowned for their independence rather than their genocidal propensities. This series is entitled Beyond the Fringe for a reason, one of which is the desire for our nationalist politics to be rid of those who possess some weird and inappropriate fetish for the Third Reich. If that is what you are interested in, you belong in the BPP, which will be staying firmly on the fringe of the fringe.
As for the concept of “reluctance to rule”, this is far from new, and is at least as old as Socrates. Regarding Griffin - who would wish to be his “rival”? He is nothing. The intent of these three pieces is to outline a proposal relating to the creation of a political party both capable of obtaining office and fit to exercise power in the public good, not to create a BNP Mark II. This proposal is not aimed specifically at members or supporters of the BNP; it is not about internal BNP affairs, and as such, your proposals regarding leadership are inapposite (not to mention intrinsically flawed).
There will be many decent individuals who have supported or have been members of the BNP who may be interested in the proposals offered on this blog, but others will find that their inclinations lead them elsewhere. The proposal is to engage and enfranchise a mass of people who currently possess no effective political voice, and as such, it is aimed at those who have no party political affiliation or who have become disillusioned with mainstream parties that no longer address their concerns.
'A smiley Hitler'. Please Claire lets all move on into modern 21st century. This malign obsession has been a curse for British nationalism. It has contaminated and split the movement.It has caused anger and disillusionment. The next move could be crucial for us all who want to be able to campaign proudly and safely. Who want to be viewed by general public as a credible political alturnative that they could support and vote for without feeling grubby.ReplyDelete
Well, it is quite astonishing.ReplyDelete
You did not sneak into my blogger preview area and crib some of my planned articles did you Durotrigan?!!!
Whilst I am pretty tired right now and will need to re-read the piece tomorrow morning(especially in terms of economics, which is not always my forte), there were certain aspects and suggestions which are more than spookily close to what I had proposed.
I had taken a different tact, as I was not describing policies or such (but general issues to grab and take advantage of as a movement and as a new discourse / narrative)- but really, it is quite astonishing!
New technologies (even mention of material technology) and the right focus upon GM dangers are examples of even rarer chances of them being so similar.
(As well as new materials - the very one you cite in fact- I did mention moss technology in mine though too, which unfortunately wasn't explicitly in this one LOL)
Yours is a little more coherent, practical themed and concise than mine, it has to be said.
I had been tinkering with mine for about ten days, then I was ill for a few days earlier this week, then when I came back to them I decided I needed to whittle them down cos all four parts were far too long.
Now, I don't think I will need to bother!
At the least, I will have to re-think how to compliment the pieces here rather than them looking like re-writes of them!
I may spot a few things that don't sit right when I re-read tomorrow - lol. I need to get through part three yet too. I look forward to that.
My last article was pretty miserable, so I had intended to have a complete overhaul and look for future possibilities instead. We seem to share many of those senses of missed opportunity.
Whatever people may make of the suggestions here, they are moving things forward and bringing proposed methodology up to the table.
This is what we should be doing more of, forging a new fully encompassing nationalism that is much more fit for purpose instead of forging knives to plunge in each others backs.
BA, please accept my apologies for the delayed reply. No, my rudimentary IT skills do not extend to hacking!Delete
I am reassured that you find what is written here broadly in line with your own thoughts. Contrary to what CZ has written below, we do need a positive and radically different approach to solving the economic malaise that besets us, not more of the failed economic approaches offered by the existing mainstream parties. I am interested in helping to bring about not only a reversal of the negative trends that nationalists bemoan, but helping to inspire people with hope for a genuinely better future. The potential of modern technology is exciting, and need not be in conflict with the goal of conserving and enhancing our natural and urban environments.
I think adopting a big-state economic programme of the kind you describe would be a disaster for the nationalist cause, both electorally and economically. Indeed this is part of the problem with the BNP at the moment. It is too easily parodied as a form of national socialism and has never worked anywhere in Europe in modern times.ReplyDelete
We don't need to rack our brains to discover a magic formula that will work. We just need to look around Europe and see what has succeeded elsewhere. There are successful nationalist parties in Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands. Copy them. Apart from the core issues of immigration, Islam, multiculturalism, free speech and the EU, they do not aspire to any fundamental re-ordering of society. They are minimally different from the status quo, except on the core issues. That is comforting to prospective voters.
Taking on more policy baggage than is absolutely necessary to fulfil our core purpose - which is to preserve the integrity of our peoples - simply widens the cognitive gap between what the electorate are used to and what you are asking them to accept. It means you have to fight and win additional battles that you never needed to fight.
CZ, there are two parties in existence that broadly follow your suggested policy focus: UKIP and the BFP. Both of these, for reasons clearly outlined in Part I of this series of articles, are incapable of winning parliamentary seats with their narrow policy preoccupations which, failing some terrible violent catastrophe, will not attract more than between 0.5% and 5% of the vote in such elections. If you want concrete evidence, look at the abysmal performance of UKIP candidate Abhijit Pandya who ran on an anti-Islamisation ticket in the Leicester South by-election in May 2011. He polled a derisory 2.9%, not notably ahead of the Monster Raving Loony candidate who took 1.6%.Delete
The key to political success lies in tackling globalism and its attendant woes, particularly its economic ones. It is the hope of a better economic future that moves people to vote, not, despite most people not being keen on it, a promise to tackle Islamisation. This series of articles was called 'Beyond the Fringe' for a specific reason, and campaigning on a policy platform that guarantees no more than 5% of the vote in a first past the post system is not what I would consider to be moving beyond such a fringe.
Duro, in the first part of this very thoughtful essay you dismissed British Freedom as a one-issue-body, ie "the anti-Islam party"; however, most of what you say above has been published by British Freedom in various forms.ReplyDelete
I'd be careful about concentrating on "ethnic ancestral homelands" - our critics would have a field-day reminding everybody that this was the policy that allowed Hitler to acquire a power-base.
Also, to say Britain is built on Christian values isn't quite hitting the spot. Britain is built on Judaeo-Christian values. When the follower of Marcion (who insisted in the 2nd century BC that Christianity was superior to and distinct from Judaism) put his theory to practice in relation to the gospels, they found that they lost everything except part of the Our Father and part of the Sermon on the Mount, and even the exceptionalism of these were questionable.
And while I wouldn't like to dismiss the contribution paganism has made to the UK, as the "folk faith" the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is "haunted by Christianity", there has to be a place for the humanist values of the Enlightenment, as many horrors as these also lead to.