Share |

Friday, 20 July 2012

Party Update and forthcoming Launch

At the beginning of May it was announced here that the decision had been taken to set up a new political party and that further information would be made available six weeks later. Naturally, rather more than that length of time has subsequently elapsed, so apologies are in order on our part for the delay in writing. However, although a little behind schedule the registration process is now underway and an associated supporting account being set up. Pending approval by the Electoral Commission it is therefore our intention to formally launch in September.

In a recent article by Andrew Brons, he reiterated his belief that a new party would be doomed to near certain failure, and also revealed that the Brent Group is planning to launch a party of its own in the near future. As stated previously and as indicated by the decision of the Brent Group not to become involved in our initiative, our party will be something new and distinct with a different emphasis to that which has gone before. Clearly, something significant within our proposals was fundamentally incompatible with the core beliefs of the Brent Group, but what they may be has not been openly stated. We are therefore driven to conclude that this divide must be expressive of two broad tendencies within the nationalist movement: one, embodied within our position, which stands for a new start and thoroughgoing modernisation of nationalism with a democratic, participatory and personal libertarian emphasis, and another, which sees itself as a ‘successor’ to Griffin’s BNP and perceives little wrong with that party other than its existing leadership and constitution.

That the split above should have occurred and found expression in the coming formation of two parties strikes us as healthy rather than as a cause for lamentation. It is our intent to connect with the electorate through being in tune with their concerns rather than stopping up our ears, closing our eyes and pretending that contemporary realities do not exist, wishing that they would vanish or fall into line with a vision of what should be rather than what is. Either nationalism adapts, or it dies. We opt for adaptation, and encourage those who share our vision to join us. For those who do not, there are plenty of other options.

UKIP emerged out of nothing in just a few years to take a considerable number of seats in the EU elections, thereby demonstrating that it is possible for a new party to make a breakthrough. However, it never managed to progress beyond this limited electoral arena because of its fixation upon a single issue. It had no “parent” party, although it attracted many members and supporters who were disaffected Tories. Our new party, like UKIP, will have no “parent”, although it will attract many members and supporters who are disaffected with the BNP.

If, as Brons asserts, “all breakaway parties fail if they break away when the parent party is still in existence”, this would suggest that what the Brent Group is due to launch will fail, for it sees and portrays itself as the true “breakaway” from the “parent party” named the BNP. We see it as that too. Our party has no parent, other than necessity. We look forward to September with a grounded sense of optimism.

Will it be to your taste?


  1. This sounds very interesting. I shall be looking forward to reading the new party's constitution, & to learn its name.
    Perhaps we can all start to hope again?

    1. Thanks Mo. Hopefully you will find it to your taste.

  2. Utterly pointless.Yet another nationalist party that will split the vote.Britain First and British Freedom and the Democratic Nationalists have already tried the "new party" thing and all have failed.The BNP have been growing since Christmas and despite all those who said BNP would have collapsed by now,the reality is somewhat different.Any new party is doomed to fail.

    1. You evidently have not read the articles that have explained this decision and the deficiencies of the existing parties and approaches. As for Griffin's BNP, it is quite deservedly going nowhere other than downwards, as illustrated by the fact that you have even bothered to leave a disparaging comment here.

  3. I will reserve judgement until more information is available but I share concerns over vote splitting. What will this new party bring that differs from existing parties such as UKIP or British Freedom?

    1. Dinan, please refer to the 'Beyond the Fringe' series of articles, for they provide the background information and explain how it will differ in approach. Part 2 deals specifically with policy. If it were not to differ from the existing parties, then indeed it would be pointless, but that is not the case.

  4. I look forward to the launch of this new party, and hope it may become a beacon for a new modern nationalist movement. It will be interesting to read the new party's policies and vision, hopefully there will be a greater emphasis on economic matters, creation of the money supply (presently in the hands of private banks), anti-globalisation, defence of British industry and jobs, and civil liberties which are being constantly eroded on the road to fascist world government.

    I hope there is more concentration on the benefits nationalism can bring to people's lives regarding issues such as jobs, heathcare, housing, infrastructure and personal freedoms, cultural heritage and national sovereignty. The new part needs to promote a positive image and vision of the future possible for our country and people!

    Good luck with this venture I will wait for its launch with interest.

    1. Yes, if the new party concentrates on economics and trying to sell to the country a distinctive nationalist vision to improve our dire economy then perhaps the electorate will take notice and vote for it. This is something no nationalist party in British history has done and is one of the main reasons why they have failed. The electorate votes and CHANGES its vote primarily on this issue as it is a 'bread and butter one'.

      Also, whilst I am not a homosexual, any new party needs to steer clear of this divisive issue and accept the law reforms which have been made in this area as some nationalists are still obsessed with the issue and a backward stance (like the BNP still has although it isn't as backward as it was) will unnecessarily alienate gays and more importantly their friends and relatives from voting for it. I can't understand why the BNP didn't see this and change its stance accordingly.

      Anonymous ( Michael)

    2. Thank you both for expressing support for the forthcoming party. Its primary focus will indeed be upon the economy as you suggest. We will be offering people a positive rather than a negative policy package, and for us the frankly bizarre obsession with people's sexual orientation displayed by some nationalists is not a matter that we are interested in. People's private lives deserve to be just that: private. Most of us are of heterosexual inclination, whereas others are just wired a different way.

    3. Exactly and in a way it is nationalist parties and the 'Right' more generally who should actually be more supportive of gay rights rather than the 'Left'. After all, the 'Right' normally bases its policies and general stances towards issues on the reality as to what the world is and the fact that humans are more shaped by their genes than their enviroment so the notion of gay rights shouldn't be anathema to the 'Right'. I have always believed that homosexuals and bisexuals are inclined the way they are because they have different genetics to hetrosexuals. Whilst I can't prove this definitely my human intuition strongly suggests this is the case.

      Nationalists are losing many potential votes by having a backward stance on this as gays and bisexuals amount to something like 7% of the population and then you have to add their friends and relatives.

      When our country is on the brink of the abysess then it is franky silly and counter-productive to unnecessarily alienate such a potential large source of voters.

      Anonymous (Michael)

    4. (Part 1 of 2)

      Talk of a "backwards stance" is falling right into the traps of the "progressive" liberal-left.

      It is the same kind of argument we often hear about "backwards stances" about race and identity.

      It is not "backwards" just because it is out of liberalist fashion, and nor are such subjects necessarily "backwards" at all.

      Traditional Nationalists have generally always been PRO a traditional family unit and against general deviancy and perversion of those values, no matter where the source. This is where the line has to be drawn.

      Not many nationalists give a chuff about homosexuals as long as they just get on with their ordinary lives and cease agitating for recognition as being a substitute to a traditional family unit.

      This inevitably means being against 'gay marriage', adopting children, and all the rest of it - and all the 'Gay Pride' kind of marches which promote it and can often contain actions and elements that should not be made into public spectacles.

      What people get up to in their own sex lives is their business, and certainly none of mine.

      However, when that boundary is crossed and they make their sexuality everybody elses business, it becomes our business.

      There is an agenda at work here - not always by gay people themselves - to overthrow stable societies. The promotion of homosexuality, "equality" and the pushing 'group rights' like that is a planned part of it.

      I'm not keen on folk who just mouth off about homosexuals for no real reason either. I couldn't really care less what they do or get up to between themselves in their own houses.

      Some articles I have seen about it are indeed too crude and blunt for my liking. I see no need for such approaches or positions.

      So, I do know the kind of thing you are talking about and I share the view that it is not particularly well presented or articulated. It is certainly not where I am coming from with it all, that's for sure.

      It is said that homosexuals used to face beatings, death penalties, prison or routinely being sacked from jobs just for being gay. I don't think even the harder end of Nationalism advocates a return to such things. I have never seen it advocated, that's for sure.

      The general victory for homosexuals being left alone, decriminalised, and treated with regular dignity on a one to one basis has already been won a long time ago.....but it seems the waggon cannot stop rolling, and that is where the problem arises.

      There are limits to what should be accepted and acceptable, and it is the 'agenda' that is being waged (and the attitude of it all) that annoys a lot of people in nationalism.

    5. (Part 2)

      For some people it is now above and beyond that of "live and let live", which the vast majority of people tend to do in their day-to-day lives. They are now pushing for the altering of society itself and what defines a society (and its beliefs) to whole new levels.

      I therefore cannot blame some nationalists for being against what they see as corruption and corrosion of stability and normal family life, even though I do think they can go about the subject in a poor way that unnecessarily alienates the public.

      (I say "normal" because that is the status of a good 95% of the population, making the rest, by definition "abnormal").

      It has to be put in its context and place. This is why to speak of "backwards views" as a kind of broad sweeping statement against some kind of "forward thinking enlightened views" can be seen as rather 'ignorant' and 'intolerant' in itself.

      I also share the view that on the grande scheme of things, worrying over something like 1.5% of the population so much is not a wise use of our time.

      For that is all they are said to be - not 7% as you suggest.(see

      At the most it might be around 5% - and how many of that fictional 5% would be 'nationalists' in all other regards of ideological importance anyway? It must be a fraction of a fraction.

      Sure, we can be more neutral on the matter, but that does not mean we have to join the "equality" bus, undermine our values and attempt to ride home on their agenda.

      Personally, I could quite happily forego a fractional percentage of the population for the sake of keeping our movement on the right tracks and the wider ideology intact.

      This is just like I would not alter racial aspects of nationalism positions and our ideology just to suit people in "modern" "forward-looking" "progressive" Britain who are mixed-race or black, or to gain the support of their extended white or black family.

      Go down that kind of route and it is a foregone disaster before you even set off. We might as well kiss our asses goodbye now and stop wasting any more time fighting for our survival.

      Some principles and values are there for a reason.

      Gays are low on my priority list, so when it does come up I think Nationalists should either be sticking to the promotion and protection of traditional pro-traditional family values - or not making such a meal of it at all (if there is no real need to do so).

      There is a difference between being pro-traditional family values, pro Christian, etc and being "anti-gay" and "hating gays" and banging on about sticking things up bottoms and all that kind of stuff.

      Much like there is a difference between being fine with treating gay people as general equals as human beings, not being nasty, not sacking them for their private lives, just being 'live and let live' etc - and that of championing "gay rights" and pushing in that whole direction.

    6. It is definitely more than 1.5%. My percentage includes the ones who are actualy bisexual. I have long suspected and I believe this is accurate to say that most people who say they are gay are actually bisexual and not exclusively homosexual so my estimation includes about 5% bisexuals.

      Anonymous ( Michael)

    7. The Office For National Statistics, as indicated on the BBC link provided above, says otherwise. The figure of 1.5% includes bisexuals.

      "The Office for National Statistics (ONS) says 480,000 (1%) consider themselves gay or lesbian, and 245,000 (0.5%) bisexual."

      It only rises to theoretically or potentially 5% in total because a whopping 3% "did not know, or did not answer".

      That is quite a margin, of which I have largely given the benefit of the doubt - even though quibbling over small percentages does not really have a bearing on the real fundamental matter at hand.

      If we are to talk figures, 1.5% is the ONS figure of both gays and bisexuals, so for the sake of fairness, I could suggest that 2.5% is possible, which is almost double the official figures given.

      7% though, no way at all.

      It is usually only sites like Stonewall and various other elements of the Gay Rights lobbyists that tend to push the 7% figure, because it obviously suits their purposes to do so, and indeed suits their existence / continuance, not to mention to implant the idea that it is widespread and much more prevalent as a "norm" in society, when it is not.

      Seeing as the BBC are notoriously leftwing biased and that the ONS is the official statistics authority (that supposedly aims to be impartial), I tend to believe the ONS figures and the BBC article more than I would do "The Pink News" or other outlets.

      But as I say, it does not matter to me (or many others) whether they are 1.0%, 1.5% or 2.5% or 5%.

      It does not alter the real issue relating to why a lot of nationalists and others in society take issue with the "gay rights" agenda and do not want it embedded into Nationalism, much like the promotion of race-mixing would be strongly resisted by all true nationalists. In fact, anybody who supports "modernisation" like that are not nationalists at all.

      The issue of homosexuality is certainly much lower on the list to that though, which is another reason why I think too much time is wasted over it.

      When it does come to indigenous gay men and women, the live and let live, keep yourself to yourself, don't ask, don't tell, just "keep the noise down" and 'get on with your lives' kind of "normality" of just being basically humanitarian and decently mannered towards people is plenty good enough.

      I certainly argue for the above things with those other nationalists who are much harder and who do not share my positions. I normally try to encourage them to drop the crudity and the unnecessary commentary, even though I am also wholly against police stations and councils flying the rainbow flag, and all that kind of stuff that often comes up.

      Anything further than the above 'normal treatment' is in my opinion a subversive agenda that should be resisted.

      When it comes to keeping the volume down, people tend to mean getting shut of the Pride marches, and seeking behaviour that is a little bit more Matthew Paris and David Starkey - and less Alan Carr, John Barrowman, Peter Tatchel, etc, who tend to define their whole lives and identity around their sexual preferences or who otherwise push it into people's faces.

      People don't have to be "shoved back in the closet", just like Paris and Starkey are not in the closet, but they do not have to parade about it either, nor agitate for things which I discussed earlier.

      That is the middle of the see-saw on this issue for many people, especially many nationalists.

      If that rational and compromising position puts some people's noses out of joint, then so be it. We will have to manage without, and will instead concentrate on keeping existing memberships who do not desire the gay rights agenda marching into nationalism, which are no doubt much more numerous.

    8. I think the figure from the ONS doesn't include many people who are gay or more probably bisexual who haven't yet admitted to themselves what they are and who are reluctant to do so because some people in society still see it as a stigma so I would take the higher figure of anything up to 5-6%.

      I am a moderate on this issue. I don't see how giving gays/bisexuals certain rights (certainly those which could be called personal individual rights) will seriously harm society or damage the family as its basis. A nationalist party should aim to reintroduce tax incentives for marriage.

      I too don't like gay pride events. I would be reluctant to ban them but I would ask those who take part in them why do you do it?

      Any new and electable nationalist party will have to ban people who rant and rave about this subject and who are fundamentally bigoted and irrational concerning it. For a good example of what I mean by these types look at the recent 'debates' on Stormfront Britain where a moderate nationalist who knows a gay friend got banned by the moderators for expressing a rational viewpoint. I highly suspect many of the worst offenders in this regard on that website are not nationalists at all but Reds seeking to give nationalists a diabolical public image.

      Yes, it is stupid when you have police stations flying the rainbow flag. Homosexuals/bisexuals should be treated with respect but that also entails them not making a fuss about their sexuality and not defining themselves by it and for the public authorities to not pull silly stunts such as the above.

      Anonymous (Michael)

  5. There is something else available now that should not split anyone's vote but is another string to our patriotic bow. There is still work to be done but it has started.

    1. Thanks for this. I shall provide a link in the sidebar soon. Dr Frank Ellis certainly delivered a very interesting talk to members of the group. It is dreadful that he was hounded out of his job teaching Russian at the University of Leeds a number of years back.

  6. Lol, split before you've even formed - is this a first in British politics?

    1. George, I'm fairly certain the split Durotrigan refers to is the Brent groups decision to form their own party after being courted by the BFP, joining, and deciding within weeks that the party was going nowhere and leaving.

  7. too many nationalist parties for the puiblic to be able to focus on them.
    i would have thought the BFP, as opposed to the deeply flawed BNP, would have been the one to support.
    modern nationalism seems to be far too selfish(?) in its outlook.
    seemingly determined to remain local rather than national.
    it is almost as if the leaders of those parties would rather be something in a small set up, not a relative nothing in a big one.

    1. Bilbo, I am of little doubt that the BFP is the party for you. Why it is not and will not be the party for most people has been set out here on a number of previous occasions. Please use this blog's search facility if you are interested in learning more.


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