Now that the local elections are behind us, it is an appropriate time to reply to Andrew Brons’s article which critically tackled my three-part ‘Beyond the Fringe’ (BTF) series of articles, as well as to make an announcement about the formation of a new party that is in the process of being set up (its name and further details will be announced within the next six weeks). The individuals involved have backgrounds in politics, marketing and academia.
It was encouraging to see that the BTF series was reproduced in its entirety on the Nationalist Unity Forum, and that the articles elicited a range of reactions and lively debate. Most of the commentary was prompted by Andrew Brons’s considered response which took the form of an article entitled ‘Musing Analysed – Parts of Them are Good!’ This in itself suggests that some merit was perceived in their content, although not unnaturally, the reception that they have received has not been uncritical. That the articles have stirred up a certain amount of debate is to be welcomed, as is the fact that this debate is helping to differentiate those who wish to make a positive fresh start in politics from those who do not. Amongst the latter are those who belong to what could be dubbed the ‘Reichest Tendency’, a small but vocal minority who have long bedevilled nationalism in this country through their bizarre obsession with an imported ideology spawned in the last century.
In his response, Brons made a number of specific criticisms, with those in his conclusion being of a pertinent and practical nature. Others however, perhaps arose from a lack of clarity on my part. For example, one criticism related to his conclusion that I had asserted that the BNP’s collapse had not been attributable to the media, with some specific examples being provided of how media hostility had been detrimental to the party’s fortunes. Whilst recognising that media hostility did play a role in its demise (I have written about this previously), even without this stance, the BNP would have failed for the serious reasons that were outlined in part I of the series. The decision was taken not to focus upon the attitude of the media, for there was little or nothing that could have been done to change this.
Although Brons can be said to have made a credible case against the formation of another nationalist party, I did not and do not find his case persuasive; to be credible is not necessarily to be convincing. My opinion with respect to the necessity of forming a new political party has only been reinforced by the recent local election results. As to the details of how that should be achieved, it was not the intent of the BTF series to provide this information. Such practical matters will become self-evident through the party’s creation and subsequent growth. This does not signify an absence of thought regarding this matter or a lack of planning, but rather a desire not to give too much away to prospective opponents of the concept.
Brons placed great store upon the failure of breakaway parties. This assumes a somewhat proprietorial attitude towards nationalism and nationalist politics. Having never belonged to any political party myself, my reflections have not been addressed exclusively to former and existing members of the BNP, but rather to all in this country who think and feel that the first and foremost duty of the state should be to advance the welfare, prosperity and security of the members of the national community as a whole, rather than the particularistic interests that promote globalism, globalisation and our attendant loss of sovereignty and identity. It is therefore addressed to a wide readership including members of other parties such as the English Democrats, the Democratic Nationalists, UKIP and the BFP, individuals who have traditionally supported the mainstream parties, and those of no political affiliation whatsoever. The new party concept is not supposed to appeal only to those who have been involved in the nationalist movement, but to those who whilst sharing its core values have up until this point been repelled by some of its fringe obsessions and the less savoury behaviour and opinions of a number of its prominent spokesmen (Clive Wakley has grasped this point perfectly). Thus the title of ‘Beyond the Fringe’. The goal may seem grandiose, but the ultimate aim is to create a mass party.
What has been proposed therefore, is not a ‘breakaway party’, but a new party altogether; an exercise that could be deemed to be even harder than establishing a breakaway party, but one that is nonetheless necessary owing to the manifest serious shortcomings of existing parties.
The criticism was also levelled that I had made the assumption that a certain percentage of the vote would somehow fall into the lap of a new party. Whilst I did identify a potential baseline of electoral support by aggregating votes cast for particular parties, it was stressed that this was a potential share rather than being automatically available. As shown by the election of the BNP’s two MEPs, it is far from necessary to obtain 30% of the vote to succeed in EU elections.
Brons implied that I assumed that candidates from competing nationalist parties would stand aside to allow a new party to fight elections without them hindering its prospects, yet this is something that I neither stated nor believe would be the case. A central objective of a new party, as was reiterated throughout the ‘Beyond the Fringe’ series, would be to establish recognition as a credible and moderate nationalist party, as well as being such a party rather than just appearing to be. As such, it ought to render the challenges of the existing small parties irrelevant, although of course competing with UKIP in EU elections would be a serious business.
With respect to the five specific practical questions posed by Brons in his conclusion, my responses are as outlined below.
1. How do we overcome the dilemma that breakaway parties always fail if the parent party is still operative?
Response: I am not proposing a breakaway party. This will not be ‘son’ or ‘daughter’ of the BNP, but it will contain former BNP members, as well as people who would never have considered joining the BNP.
2. How do we prepare a party to win seats in the European Parliament against all of the competition that will undoubtedly be there?
Response: The answer to this question depends very much upon how large and how strong the party has become by the spring of 2014. Whatever the case, the concentration of resources will play a crucial role.
3. How do we make this Westminster breakthrough in 2015?
Response: Once again, a perfectly legitimate question, and a very tough one to answer. The same observations apply as in the preceding answer.
4. When we have recovered the serious small party status that we had in 2010, how do we progress to become a large party? How many of the factors that determine that are within our gift and how many are beyond our control?
Response: If our message, and indeed our policy, is what the public wants and the party is rational, credible and moderate, that question will answer itself. It will grow.
5. Is it possible to change the political culture of a party without changing the type of people we recruit?
Response: As stated in the answer to the first question, this will not be BNP Mark II, thus the type of people recruited will be more varied. ManxmanGreenhaugh was correct in his observation that ‘There needs to be a split between the ‘old school’ nationalists and the modernisers.’
Forthcoming articles dealing with the question of perception in the media and within the nationalist movement will provide further clarification with respect to some of these issues.
I welcome Andrew Brons’s qualified positive response and also the pertinent set of practical questions that he raises in his conclusion. I fully acknowledge that it will be no easy task to take this concept, realise it and make it succeed, but if we do not try, only one outcome is certain: failure. Without an animating desire to initiate and realise the positive changes required to protect and advance the well-being, freedom and security of our people, there will be no action and success. Ultimately, the success of this endeavour will rest upon the motivation and dedication of those who share the goals outlined in the BTF series, and who find the forthcoming detailed party concept to their taste. That detailed exposition will however have to wait until another day.
For those of you who are perhaps mystified as to why this decision has been taken and think that the concept of a new party is a waste of time, then please refer to the three constituent articles of 'Beyond the Fringe' by following the links below:
- Part 1 dealt with the electoral failure of nationalist politics in general and nationalist parties in particular, highlighting the weaknesses of each of the visible small parties.
- Part 3 examined the potential baseline of support for a new party, as well as: electoral strategy, tactics, linguistic usage and general principles of party organisation.
With all the myriad right-wing mini-parties we have already I don't see the need for yet another one, however, good luck to you.ReplyDelete
As for the new name, please don't come out with yet another variation on British National Party, British Peoples Party, Britain First, British Freedom Party, National Democrats, National Front etc Try something more colourful and imaginative, like the Greeks with their romantically named Golden Dawn. You might just capture the imagination of the public.
Well, I can understand your scepticism, but if you read the three articles that have led up to this announcement, I think that you will understand why this decision has been taken.Delete
As for its name and image, they really will be quite distinctive.
Economics for Helen, by Belloc would be perfect for economic policy. The banning of usury (as he defines it) and Fractional reserve banking would round off economic policy.ReplyDelete
"A formal written constitution"... - we already have a constitution.
Many thanks for your recommendation. I shall track it down and read it.Delete
What has to be taken into consideration is that any party which is oppositional to globalist values will be subjected to willful misrepresentation and villification by those who are either full blown globalist ideologues or those who have cynically adopted globalist values ( survivalists) in order to gain status and 'success' in a society which will countenance nothing less than complete abeisance to its values . This is something which can only be countered by a concerted campaign to educate the general population as to the existence of this power dynamic, of which most are blissfully unaware. I am taking up what Andrew Brons has correctly identifed as being the might of the media and the political elite whom it serves to promote their cause and to undermine support for nationalism. The marxists recognised that it was necessary to pervade the superstructure of society in order to exert their influence, and this is largely what they have done. Consider, how today each individual must demonstrate this abeisance to gloablist valuesReplyDelete
( in particular "equality and diversity" steeped, as it is, in ideology), in order to attain any rank above that of the bottom rung of the ladder.
As I have stated in reply to another correspondent on this website, nationalism does not have ANY friends in high places in this country and that remains the problem which cannot be overcome without a concerted effort to make the moral case for nationalism and to impact upon the cultural and intellectual life of the nation, not because this sphere is necessarily more worthy or virtous than any other but, simply, because it is in this sphere that opinion leaders emerge and influence hearts and minds. A monumentous task,indeed.
I fully agree with the point that both you and Andrew Brons make with respect to the vigorous vilification of any anti-globalist individuals, parties or movements. It is also all too well known to me how the 'equality and diversity' dogma is rammed down everyone's throat in the contemporary workplace, especially in the public sector, and every interview now has to incorporate an explicit nod to this false credo. Insanely, excellent candidates can be passed over or written off as innately 'defective' because they fail to mouth the banal and false platitudes associated with the need to display a 'commitment' to 'diversity'.Delete
Our task may be tough, but it is nonetheless one which needs to be undertaken.
Just to further elucidate my point about the need to build a cultural or intellectual critique; can anyone even imagine a feature film, play or novel critical of multi-ethnic Britain ever being commissioned or published??!! Or a treatise on the need to preserve native British ethnic identity ever being published in the mainstream press, major publishing house or as a TV documentary/commentary??!!Delete
P.S thanks for the acknowledgment, by the way.
No, I can never imagine such a work being commissioned or published, but have occasionally pondered the worth of producing something of that nature. Black comedy (no, not a pun!) strikes me as being the most suitable vehicle.Delete
Firstly, thank you for he kind words.
Secondly, I hope you don't mind me posting this link. It is to a discussion paper I wrote originally for the early BFP. It was meant then, as now, to facilitate positive discussions.
You are welcome David. Many thanks for posting the link to your paper. I shall read it this evening.Delete
The link is wrong; it should be sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/finding-right-standpoint.html - the "http://" is not required, although it was automatically added when I copied/pasted the right url.Delete
You'd think blogger could get it's own links' format right....
Thank you for your vigilance. The form is a bit garbled anyway, but at least now it can be read.Delete
This link does workDelete
My advice. DO NOT have any past high ranking members of the BNP or NF in your leadership. Let them join as passive members only otherwise the press will have a field day.ReplyDelete
Also, DO NOT leave your membership in the hands of any random member. It has to be kept on a secure, non computerised, format, offline away from any internet.
Sound advice. Thank you.Delete
If you are really serious on starting a Party then please stop all comments on the official website. The comments will drag your new party down.ReplyDelete
Thank you. That is an excellent suggestion.Delete
You have so much to learn.
Three or four of those that you have listed are the worst cranks known to the nationalist scene. They have joined just about every party so far and have achieved the envious record of being expelled from them all.
Still, that's for you to deal with and for you to learn the hard way. Far from me to give you advice, apparently you know it all, lol.
OMG, this is going to be fun to watch!
Good luck, fella, you're going to need it with some of those in your party!
You see, in this game there are talkers and there are do'ers. Ninety percent of the fringe-mongers and fence sitters are talkers. I include you in that.
Crack on, McDuff.
My citing of certain names was an act of courtesy, nothing more, and neither an indication that I necessarily agree with what those individuals have written, nor that they will agree with the stance that the party takes. Some, undoubtedly (I believe the ones to whom you allude, with the possible exception of one) will recoil in ‘horror’ from my moderate stance. As for your reference to ‘doers’ and ‘talkers’, what is it that you are ‘doing’ that is so worthwhile? Enlighten us.Delete
Of course, by definition I am ‘on the fringe’, but what I have written in this series has elicited no convincing refutation. Are the positions that I have outlined ‘fringe positions’, or not? What is it that makes you find them so unpalatable? As an individual, I am insignificant. If another party were to pursue an agenda close to that which I have outlined, then I would join it. It is the fact that there is no such party and that others have urged me to help bring it into being that has precipitated this move. It is, as is self-evident, a near-thankless task. Yet, what do you have to offer by way of something constructive?
Good Afternoon, Durotrigan.ReplyDelete
I think many people are holding out for a nice, clean, clear, freshly styled and professional political party they can throw their support behind.
Many of us, or at least myself at any rate, are not happy with the British National Party and where that seems to be going both as a party and as an ideological standpoint.
It is fractured, the opposition and internal figures have swept away virtually all we had built up, and in general terms of 'going somewhere', it just has a bit of an air about it that it is stagnant and that it will never change its antics.
Many of us are not interested in or comfortable with Britain First, with its somewhat odd attitudes and approaches, never mind some quite dodgy ideological stances and some rather bizarre arguments/logic (which they can somehow put out with a straight face).
If an organisation can put out that kind of tenuous argument, even small ones such as comparing BNP membership numbers with the membership numbers of the RSPB, then I am afraid I do not have much confidence in their ability to be credible under intense public scrutiny.
I am not entirely hostile to it, I think we need a different model and may need a 'campaigning group' type organisation - but it just does not 'gel' with me on many fronts, it has an atmosphere around it which is not where I think we need to be going.
Others are trying to revive or resuscitate the National Front after about 40 years on the political and societal scrap-heap. I am not sure how successful that will be.
Whilst I have no real problems with them (I happen to admire their strong positions and dedication to keep to them), I just do not believe they can change their approaches (not as in policies or positions, but attitude) or rise to the challenge - not least because of a very tired public image.
Some may say it goes in their favour because it is a recognised brand.....but unfortunately, it may be precisely because it is such a recognised brand that it will not ever be welcomed by the wider public.
Again, whilst I can appreciate some of that 'no-nonsense' attitude and confrontational politics as recently seen by Peter Tierney (they certainly put me to shame by standing up and shouting down police and hijacking an election event, for example) - I just cannot see that old kind of approach and attitude working well for us in the future.
Barking in the face of the police about Zionist puppets and paedo’s may be true to the cause etc and quite precise, but does it help? I am not so sure. It may help boost internal nationalist morale to engage in that kind of thing, but from the outside, I think it is going to hamper the cause they fight for.
The NF mayoral election video that did the rounds was very good though. It is a party of contrast just lately, even from the same representatives!
Again, I am not hostile to them - and if nothing else works might find myself supporting and joining them (should I even stay around at all).
Although I have not really been following the British Freedom Party, I have heard that they are now officially in league with the English Defence League and that, essentially, they are pretty much going to be hijacked by that kind of faction, focus on the blinkered Islamic issue, and partake in what many others would say was 'Zionist' and more 'neocon' style nationalism rather than the traditional one.
I did read the resignation letter from the former Brent Group member, which only kind of confirmed my ideas of what was going on - and what the style of party it would eventually turn out to be.
That is one reason why I did not jump that way when the Brent Group got tired of waiting for Nick Griffin to step down, or for a new party to come along from Andrew Brons.
I don't know much about the England First Party to make much of a comment on them. I have tended to like some of their articles and opinion pieces over the years on rare occasions I have had a look, but who they are and what kind of background/approaches or ideas they have, I do not really know.
As an 'ethno' nationalist, I cannot really agree to Freedom Democrats, English Democrats, National Liberal Party, UKIP or any such thing, nor can many others in the nationalist fold.
British Freedom at least had, on its inception, some kind of (wobbly) backbone on that issue even though it tried to play both sides of the coin. Paul Weston, despite some positions he holds, seems to at least know the score with demographics and wrote some good articles about the matter, but again, it was all generally going off down an entirely different route though.
There are other things knocking around, British Peoples Party, etc, but they are not exactly the image or approach we need either. I believe they still sell a bust of Hitler on their merchandise page - which is alright if you like that kind of thing, but shows political and strategical naivety on the highest levels.
I don't know much about the Democratic Nationalists. I think I might have heard one of their speakers on a video from an Amren conference - (I thought it was exceptionally good as it happens) - and heard that they have some pretty high calibre 'stature' people in there with a decent and presentable image(doctors, lawyers, academics and the like).
I also know a former activist from my own town has joined them - as he told me the other week outside the local election hall.
Lawful Rebellion and British Constitution has its merits and some solutions as part of its concept and package - but it is not really 'nationalism' as we know it. It is something else, a sort of new age truth-movement, radical libertarian, multicultural / multiracial, anti- establishmentarianist mixture.
All in all, there is just nothing obvious around, well publicised, etc, that ticks all the right boxes anymore as far as I am concerned. Perhaps it is too much to expect that there ever will be.
I am sure you know what I mean though, when I think many would like a straight sail between many of these things, something successful that takes off and eventually sweeps the others away because there is no 'twist' to it, no 'nut jobs', no 'cranks', no buffoons, idiots, malcontents and wreckers.
I wish that I was in a better state of mind, but as you know, I am weary with it all and at the point of doing even less than the nothing I have never done.
I wish I was enthusiastic about everything, raring to go, excited and ready to roll my sleeves up and jump in to something "in reality" - but right now I am still not. I'm just a bit lost at the moment, in a lot of different ways.
I do not know what to suggest you do, or what you may need to do, or what is needed or required to try to kick-start what must be a massive task (to get something sturdy going from scratch).
As I have explained above, I do hope something comes along that unifies and unites everything down a brilliant new direction and into a new dawn of nationalist politics and nationalist culture shaping.
We cannot carry on as we are, that is for sure. We are just treading water and looking to cling to random rafts. Something has had to happen.
You (and whoever you are in contact with) are at least trying to put a vision into practice.
Besides the cost and potential heartache, I don't think there is much to be lost by giving it a go and seeing what happens. If it takes off, great stuff. If it doesn't, then at least you can say you tried.
Unfortunately, I think many people are still going to be a bit cynical about a new party, even though many might long for one which is right on target and 'up to a next level' of professionalism and strategy.
As can be seen above, I have listed umpteen different groups which are already in operation (to various degrees of success). There are probably many more I have forgotten or are unaware of. It is a crowded market. Some people are bound to be cynical about another one coming along.
You will probably get the 'civic' vs 'ethno' debate raging as people figure out *exactly* where you stand as a party and what you will openly state and defend.
You will probably get mocking comments about whatever name it is you may have decided upon. It doesn't matter if it is a good name or bad name, you will still get mocked and criticised over it anyway.
You will probably get people coming along saying such and such is a crank, or Mi5, or queer, or fraudster, that it is all generally not to be trusted.
I am a poor judge of character sometimes and not into the pantomime of nationalists, so I really couldn't advise - aside from the well known liabilities we all know about. I just know that unless they are all new names there is bound to be one or two who cause a controversy for some reason or another. There always is.
You will probably get the whole 'not another party' thing, the whole 'party politics doesn't work anyway' debate, and all kinds of smears and abuse.
I think the worst will be off other nationalists, other sites, off other parties or entities that don't want their own revival (or ventures) to get sucked away. That is even before the opposition get a hold! lol.
The usual old womans knitting club will probably be out, gossiping and moaning, and stirring things up because they like to be "entertained".
I wish I was in more of a position to be of practical use, but at this time I am still not in the right frame of mind.
All I can do for now is assess what comes along, see whether I think it is on the right lines, and if I think it is, try to argue for people to at least give it a chance in comment sections and such, or maybe join and see how it goes or whatever - even if it just be 'as a part of' thing rather than a 'ditch all other ties and jump ships' thing.
I bet you are all perhaps excited and nervous about it, but whilst I hope it goes well and may be being negative in expectations of people, be prepared for hostility that you may never have expected from a venture that aims to 'help' provide something for people to back.
Some people are determined to unbalance, destabilise and generally poo-poo anything that comes along.
It is all very well for some critics being "do-ers" but if they are "doing" the wrong things and "doing things" the wrong way, then it is often akin to doing nothing productive at all. They may as well be talkers. It all depends.
But they are right in one regard - most of us are talkers. Getting new people actually out of their houses and active is going to be pretty tough, unless you can court many existing 'activists' who are known in the real field and good at what they do, then build the future from there.
Some in the Brent Group must be pretty decent, and there are a few old-hands and what seem to be good and dedicated people, perhaps along the lines of Ken Booth, or the rougher diamond types of yesteryear (as written of by Steven Smith in 'How we did it - The rise of the BNP in Burnley').
I am not sure what they were like as people or in their approaches, or necessarily what you may want to be heading with - all I am saying is that they were experienced and were grafters in the 'real world'. They are hard to get hold of it seems.
Hopefully, if you all hit the right notes and can pull in a lot of such people from different parties it might help things keep going long enough to prove any critics wrong. I don't know, I can only guess.
I don't know what the chances of survival are for another new party in this intense niche, but as I say above, despite all the competition, there is amazingly still a need for something that ticks all the right boxes and fills that current void many people are still in.
On that, I can only wish you all good luck! I do hope it takes off.
We need something positive to happen to try and lift us out of the chaos and the lull we have had for the last year or two. This may be it. Who knows?!
Thanks, and all the best,
(a still somewhat depressive!) B.A.
Hello BA. Thank you for your lengthy reflections upon this announcement. As you note, the carping and sniping has already begun, arising from the combination of factors that you enumerate. Following a backlink to a certain forum, I have already seen bizarre comments characterising those of us behind this initiative as disaffected “blue-rinse” “Monday Club” types, as well as “civic nationalists”, “pseudo-nationalists”, “pseudo-right-wing” and the party as a “vanity project”. The individual behind that particular comment string is well known enough on certain forums, and has declared his support for the NF. I am as happy to have nothing to do with him, as he is to have nothing to do with the party under development.Delete
It will, as you also note, be only a matter of time before the full panoply of insults and baseless insinuations is deployed, especially if we do gain support. Still, it comes with the territory I suppose. Thank you for your words of support. See what you think once the party is launched, and if you find that you subscribe to what it stands for, then of course you would be welcome to join.
I don't know, you might look rather dashing in a blue-rinse Durotrigan! Assuming you have anything to actually rinse that is, lol.Delete
I used to attend the Monday Club too..no, not THAT one, the one in Wetherspoons where you got a meal and a pint for about £5.99. lol
I cannot really say I have disagreed with the said person before now, on some issues and positions I tend to be on their side - but I think rather than it being personal or anything like that, it may be that after such a long duration of nothing happening and nothing going anywhere, people have had to harden up and nail their colours to whatever mast they have since chosen.
People who have mulled over and decided to throw it all behind Britain First, or return to the National Front, or go to the British Freedom Party or the English Democrats, will probably not welcome something else coming along to muddy the waters again.
They might have told themselves that 'that's that now' and they are sticking with their choice. It takes something to say you were wrong or that there is something better or alternatively just as viable.
The guy who left BFP found out it wasn't for him after all. He held his hand up and said so.
That doesn't mean it is a bad for somebody else, but just that he no longer saw it as being the thing he had hoped it would be and that he therefore advised people with his positions to consider their own take on the matter. That is fair enough, I think.
Some people may just feel there are enough things out there already, and maybe like somebody who returned to the Front, or threw all their weight behind Britain First, they may even want all else to peel away so that their chosen model becomes the dominant one and thus they are proven to have made the right choice of whom to back.
I do not really know.
In my own naive way, I wish people didn't have to compartmentalise themselves so rigidly. We all may have our favourites, but we shouldn't be enemies and spend all our time sniping or pulling each other down.
Some people are suited for one thing, some for another. There should be a little more mutual agreement and working for the 'greater good' - in an ideal world.
I am not a member of British Freedom, but hey, if they did really well somewhere, got a great turnout in some part of the country and cultivated a decent 'nationalist' scene there - I would still see it as something to congratulate even though I am not personally part of their political world.
At least it generally pushes in the right direction and fertilises the groundwork of this country to shift away from the mainstream.
The same goes for the NF. If there was an NF candidate standing in my area, and the other choices were English Dems, Liberals, Conservatives, Labour - I would of course support the National Front.
I wouldn't say "oh, that National Front group is hostile to my group, so balls to them, I am not going to support their candidate".
If they or Britain First or if Lawful Rebellion were having a meeting or whatever in the next town or so along, I would probably go along if I could.
If it is on people's doorstep, why not? They may not travel 30 or 40 miles to go somewhere, but if it is immediately local, why not see what's going on? Do some 'networking'.
All these groups are never going to get along. Whether it be personalities, histories, different strains of ideologies, different strategies, models, approaches, attitudes, issues, there is always going to be disagreement.
Whilst it is expecting too much to unite everybody, I think we should at least try to form some kind of loose association and try and have a cease-fire on each other from time to time.
It does not mean agreeing with them or even aligning with them, it just means knowing when to work together for something and resisting making problems for each other if it serves none of us any purpose to do so.
I suppose I have always been an idealist that way, lol.
The one constant of any British nationalist party should, above all, be to strive to preserve native British identity. I think this can be achieved without reverting to a compulsory repatriation policy of yesteryear, which would be impossible to bring about and which the majority of nationalistically inclined Britons do not support(and I firmly believe that,despite current voting trends they make up the majority of the native British population; talk to the average Lib/Con/Lab voter and it doesn't take long for them to espouse nationalist sentiment).Delete
Ditching divisive and peripheral issues which are extraneous to nationalism, such as capital punishment, and wanting to remove same sex civil partnerships, over alligning with Christianity etc would prevent much internal divisision and not alienate a large number of potential supporters.
It is obvious that the majority of currently electorally active anti-immigration /anti-EU voters have coalesced behind UKIP because ( though misguidedly and naively) they perceive it to be the most viable and electable hope they have to address their main concerns. It is understandable that that these voters should plump for the party seemingly most likely to succeed. I have argued on the BNP website for the past few years that the party needs to differentiate itself in a positive way from UKIP in the minds of the electorate but they have continued to campaign as if UKIP did not exist - to disasterous consequence. I have argued that the election and campaign literature does nothing to present policy in a convincing way - which is crucial when faced with an electorate which is deeply sceptical and mis-informed about British nationalism - even though, paradoxically, they are, on the whole, at heart sympathetic to it. Unfortunately, I feel that there has been a chronic failure to understand the political mindset and concerns of the patriotic voters, relying too much on populist campaigns and banalities instead of reasoned argument. I may not be a member due to my public sector job but I have been a very active supporter financially and with leafleting (still putting out thousands of leaflets in the recent elections and doing more than many paid up members). I have not entirely given up with the BNP, I wish it would revive but fear it has reached a tipping point of decline. I despise factionalism and consider such actions to be completely irresponsible and weakening the nationalist presence, morale and cause. Whilst I have no time or regard for fascists and racial supremacists who bedevil robust, pragmatic (but no less principled)nationalists, I have always had respect and felt a spirit of comradeship with those who reject internationalism and its political manifestations, and whom, where they are able, actively struggle and sacrifice to fight for the very survival of the British nation which has become imperilled.
Well BA, maybe they were referring to blue-rinse chest hair? Not a trend that's caught on admittedly, but you never know, fashions are so fickle and outlandish that such a stylistic statement could catch on, but if it does so, I'll not be adopting it. £5.99 for a meal and a pint? Very good value. It's a wonder that Simon Darby hasn't devoted a series of blog posts to Wetherspoon's Monday Club.Delete
Salford City, your observations are spot on; your position is precisely that of the new party. It is a perfect fit. As such, once membership opens, I hope that you will consider joining and becoming an active member.Delete
Without wishing to cramp Simon Darby's style of deviating from serious matters, I think they did away with the Monday Club a few years ago.Delete
But they still do a Steak Night on Tuesdays, a Sunday Club, and a very popular Curry Club on a Thursday night.
I think prices depend on where you are, but near me, they were about £5.99 for a meal and a pint of a specific choice of lagers or bitter.
Given that a pint is now reaching the ridiculous heights of nearly £3 even here in the depressed north, it can't really be sniffed at.
Due to the prevailance of Halal in the British food chain, pub chains, ready meals, some supermarkets, and for reasons of intense farming and things like injecting growth hormones and steroids into cattle and all that stuff, I have been a 'pescetarian' for 18 months now.
That meant my steak nights, sunday roast chicken dinners and tasty curry club nights became a bit curtailed.
Luckily, they do have some decent vegetarian alternatives now as part of the same deals.....but seeing as I don't want to gain a massive pot-belly, I still don't make that big a habit of going. lol.
Watch out Simon Darby, I am on your trail!
Re, Salford City, I am a supporter of capital punishment but I do think that in the interests of political positioning a new party should say it would hold a national referendum on giving judges the option of imposing capital punishment with regard to those who commit the worst crimes after having a full and frank national debate. There are quite a few people who wouldn't support a nationalist party if such a party made an actual commitment to reintroducing it. For the sake of gaining the widest possible support for a nationalist party, it is wise then for a nationalist party to just say it would hold a referendum on the subject. This is also a good way to deflect the inevitable accusation from the Left that such a party is 'nazi', 'fascist', 'strongly authoritarian' ect.Delete
Also, I can't see, as you can't, why a nationalist party can't take a relatively liberal line on homosexuality. It is irrelevant what an individual gets up to in the privacy of their own bedroom (provided no harm is done to another person). I can't and never have understood why some 'nationalists' have an obsession with this subject. I believe it may come from their stupid belief that homosexuality can be 'caught' and that an increased incidence of it within society will cause the birthrate to decrease. It hasn't occured to these idiots that somebody's sexuality is innate and not 'caught' as in the case of somebody getting the common cold! A credible nationalist party therefore should support civil partnerships but I would be wary of one that supports gay 'marriage'.
Re Salford City, I also agree that a new party needs to stay away from Christianity. Apart from making the general point that Britain is a majority Christian country, no successful political party makes constant references to religion (look how unsuccessful the Christian Party is for an example). Britons 'don't do God' as Americans do. Apart from NI, Britain has no equivalent to America's 'Bible' Belt'Delete
The best way of combatting 'the Tory Party in exile' ie UKIP is to point-out the disastrous policies of economic globalism that party adheres to. Their policy of exiting the EU doesn't amount to much when it is allied with this stance.
Thanks, Durotrigan. I don't know how I missed this except that I'm not around as much as I used to be. It's interesting and I wish you well. A great deal of thought & planning has obviously gone into it and I'll post a link, albeit belated :(ReplyDelete
SC makes a good point about forced repatriation. Even if we forget for a moment the sure vitriol of the msm & current politicos, the British people themselves would never go for it. It was what this country fought against 60+ yrs ago and it just isn't in our nature. I know there are ways around it but who really wants a regulated press & to do a Ceausescu on our current Members of Parliament & their families fhs? I doubt there'd be many when it comes down to the wire.
Goodnight Vienna: I'm in favour of repatriating illegal immigrants and failed asylumm seekers, and of putting in place financial incentives to re-settle some recent immigrants. I believe most Britons are too. I was referring to a 'send 'em all back' policy.Delete
Thanks for the link GV. I hope that the party appeals once all is revealed. It certainly will not be advocating a regulated press or any sort of violence/reprisals against parliamentarians, etc. Those of us behind the concept believe in freedom of conscience and expression. I have seen calls for this sort of violent nonsense bandied about by some people who call themselves 'nationalists', and to be honest, not only is it deeply embarrassing, but it is also alarming. Individuals like that are not welcome.Delete
As for repatriation, I would only advocate it for illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers.
Thanks Barry, my job aside, the capital punishment policy was the one which made me hold back from taking memebership of the BNP, though I have chosen to actively support the party because, fighting for the survival of our nation takes precedence by far. I support a referendum on the issue.ReplyDelete
I would also like to add that I believe that the BNP has suffered because it has not presented a strong and clear programme of a nationalist vision of the future ( I am not meaning election manifestos), ie, what we envisage and what we hope to do under a British nationalist government, what are values and our cause, what is our moral case. This would go a long way in not only inspiring energetic idealism (particularly in the young)but it would also prevent those who have erroneous interpretations of nationalism and who are likely to bring discredit upon it from joining the party ( ie; the right arm salute brigade). Furthermore, it would also effectively prevent the party from being subjected to scare mongering accusations about a 'fascist threat' from those who aim to scare away both current and potential support. Similarly, there needs to be a readily available resource/ statemant to refute the popular arguments employed against ethn-nationalism such as, 'we're all human beings so why should we object to other ethnic groups coming to live in our country when so many of us have gone to theirs', 'If someone is born in this country then this makes them as British as the next man' etc, etc. These "arguments" do actually hold great sway and are commonly fed to the general public as valid reasons not to support ethno-nationalist parties. It is therefore essential that we debunk these political urban myths if we are to get the majority of voters 'on side'.
GV, it depends on what is happening. These gang-rapes of young White girls would do it but the media ans senior police officers are fooling the public into not grasping the anti-White nature of it. The dicks at the British Freedom Party believe in a multi-racial Britain apart from Muslims. They can not forget that during last Autumn's riots Black gangsta's fired live bullets at the police in Birmingham. A couple of fatalities and they would be out as well.ReplyDelete
I agree that the problem with mass immigration doesn't just involve muslims and Islam. The BFP is making a big mistake if they believe that it is. Undoutedly, it is a major part of the problem but not its entirety.Delete
Barry, I have no patience swith this childish twaddle about what people do in their own bedrooms. It is not just there it is in the street, promoted on TV and in schools and Gay Marriage is on its way. Stop being silly and take a serious look at the issue. Mind you those who are naturally that way should be tolerated, but not equalised with hetro relationships.ReplyDelete
What people do in their own bedrooms IS their own affair provided no harm is done to another person. I do think that tv producers (especially those of soap operas) are showing homosexual relationships more and more in an attempt to be 'trendy' and 'right-on'and to promote the idea that the incidence of homosexuality is more widespread that it atually is. However, I can't see how their doing this can promote homosexuality since it is my belief and that of most scientists (I don't claim to be a scientist) that somebody's sexual orientation is innate and not 'learned'. I wouldn't ban gay pride marches I would simply say to those who take part in them why are you doing this? Straights don't make a public affirmation of their sexuality so you don't need to do it either as it isn't as if you are a persecuted minority like you could claim to be in the 1950's. Schoolchildren should only receive sex education in senior schools and not before as is happening all too frequently today.Delete
As for gay 'marriage', I am opposed. The government doesn't have the right to change the traditional definition of it. Civil partnerships are the right way to go for those who are homosexual.
Barry, I apologise for being too blunt. I know its no excuse but I was actually ill for a few days.Delete
Salford City there is already the British Freedom Party for liberal nationalists. You are campaigning for ground that is already occupied.ReplyDelete
Thankyou David, I shall try to follow the links and see what you have to say. I looked at the BFP 20 point programme a few months ago and was repelled by the fact that there was no mention of protecting native British identity, nor even an acknowledgment that such an entity exists. I have continued to actively support the BNP because, whilst I remained uncomfortable with certain positions and lesser policies, I consider the party to be on the whole rooted in a nationalism which will achieve what must be the prime raison-detre of any nationalist party; the protection and promotion of native British identity, heritage and sovereignty. I am frustrated with the way the BNP has presented itself and, thus, Britsh nationalism.Delete
I am surprised -and probably many more in nationalist politics, it seems, would agree with you - that you consider me to be 'liberal' as I am strongly opposed to many of the tenets of political liberalism; I am opposed to the free movement of populations and finance capital around the globe, and I firmly support Britain's removal from globalist, supra-national political and economic cartels, and I believe in the protection and the integrity of native British ethnic identity in the face of the challence to it from multi-ethnicity.
My own personal morality makes me not support capital punisment or abortion, yet I am an atheist. However, I support referenda to allow the general populace to decide on these matters. Homosexuality is but a facet of human(and animal)sexuality. I do not believe that people develop same-sex attraction because it is legalised or more visible, nor am I convinced that homosexuality is inherently 'anti-nationalist' or undermining of national identity or of the institution of the family. It is unsubstantiated nonsense when I hear others claim so. For the state to want to intervene to suppress or prevent it would be both futile and inhumane. However,I would not want to see those who consider homosexuality to be objectionable, or who consider any other particular victimless sexual practice or inclination to be objectionable, to be compelled to give countenance or approval to it, as is the case today under recently new legisaltion.
I believe only in a nationalism which, first and foremost, protects and promotes native British ethnicity and upholds British sovereignty and self determination. I am not a racial supremacist but I am prepared to face out the labelling of my ethno-centric political stance as being called 'racist' by the self professed anti-racists. I supportuniversal freedom of speech, thought and assembly, and multi-party democracy. I continue to consider myself to be a British nationalist, regardless.
By the way Salford City there is an intellectual and cultural critique. The problem is I am the only one doing it.ReplyDelete
British nationalism must not be British racism and British xenophobia, if you want the support of right-thinking members of society, rather than the urban proletariat who are widely perceived as CHAVs and white trash, and who give nationalism such a bad name.ReplyDelete
I am the only person who can walk the thin line of making British nationalism non-racist yet radical, intellectually appealing for the mature yet inspirational to the young.
Perhaps I am telling you what you already know?
I am the only one who can make things happen in British nationalism, but only if enough of you support me.
My views are already well-documented, and my commitment to the cause cannot be doubted.
You men will just have to get over the fact that I am female and foreign yet better able to serve the cause of British nationalism than any of you.
If you support me, you will know what civic nationalism can achieve that ethno-nationalism cannot.
If you do not, you will continue going round in ever-decreasing circles.
As The Sun might put it were it to run an article on your suggestion: ‘Khaw! Look the credentials on that!’ Blessed with the mercy of Mohammed, the compassion of Caligula and the public spiritedness of Nero, Claire brings a unique collection of attributes to this prospective role. Her sense of innate modesty would make Saparmurat Niyazov blush, were the Turkmenbashi still with us, and her self-perception ranks alongside that of the late Colonel Qaddhafi of whom she was a devotee.Delete
Fond of posing with guns, swastika flags and tweeting to all and sundry whilst using her friendly smiley Hitler icon, Claire understands that public perception counts, and that it is important to make absolutely clear what she stands for. In this she succeeds admirably. In her spare time she enjoys the rarefied pursuit of personal philosophy, and has of late, she believes, come up with some startling insights that render all preceding thought and political approaches irrelevant, being named ‘Koranism’ something or the other. It is widely believed that this doctrine is subscribed to by Sacha Baron Cohen’s latest character Admiral General Aladeen.
Claire enjoys “pointing things out”, such as that she thinks that it could be a good idea to kill disabled children just in case they might be a burden on the taxpayer (she really doesn’t have much time for Stephen Hawking). Claire doesn’t like other “burdens on the taxpayer”, such as what she terms in her own inimitably charming fashion “slut single mothers”. She is convinced of their innate parasitic, feckless worthlessness, something of which she could never be accused of course. Claire herself is not, apparently, a burden on the taxpayer as she has an important job which happens to be “pointing things out”, such as who should be legally murdered and why. We know this because she announced it in a posh condescending fashion on one of those dreadfully vulgar things known as a radio phone-in show. Quite how her existence is either economically or socially productive cannot be fathomed.
It is rumoured that if she is unable to found a British Koranic Nazi Party she will be pestering the producer of the next Bond film to allow her to star as a supervillain on ‘Khaw Island’, which she will of course get to keep and rule after filming has terminated.
I am very disappointed that after so many years of my going on about Slut Single Mums, Durotrigan still does not get my point. Or perhaps he does but is pretending he does not?Delete
If he does get my point, then it would mean he would have to do as I do, and denounce Slut Single Mums, which he does not wish to do because too many of them now have the vote and too many of them are his friends and family.
Cowardice can always be an EXCUSE but it must never be a JUSTIFICATION for not saying and doing what needs to be said and done.
Sadly, such is the degenerate quality of British Nationalists now that they need a female and a foreigner to point out such things to them.
I shall continue to point out the perniciousness of feminism for as long as British nationalists are having difficulties coming to terms with the depth and extent of their own cowardice and their hypocrisy.
In short, Khaw is as mad as a duck that wears wellies.ReplyDelete
To establish that I am mad you have to first establish that I am wrong. In what regard am I wrong?Delete