EDL Solihull Demo

This afternoon an EDL demo has been taking place in Solihull, the first of 2013. According to various reports on Twitter, anywhere between 40 and 60 supporters took part. One estimate even placed their numbers as low as 25. Although billed as a ‘regional demo’, the numbers are small. There seems to be little other information circulating about the demo, although its detractors have asserted that its organiser – Matthew Pile – had been involved in a violent racist attack on a fellow bus passenger last October. Press coverage of the protest was limited to an article in the Birmingham Mail, which claimed that there were circa 60 demonstrators in total and whilst hostile in tone noted that the demonstration was peaceful. There was no counter-demonstration.

With Stephen Lennon/Tommy Robinson having recently been sentenced to a ten-month custodial sentence for having entered the US on someone else’s passport, and the EDL seemingly having passed its high watermark in terms of numbers attending demonstrations, some observers have been touting this as signalling the demise of the anti-Islamist campaign group, although in reality the picture is rather more complex. Lennon himself had assumed a high-profile role in the BFP alongside Kevin Carroll in April last year, but left in October, announcing that he was to transform the EDL itself into a political party. Carroll however stayed in the BFP whilst remaining a high-profile member of the EDL. To the surprise of many, Carroll became BFP Chairman earlier this month when Paul Weston stepped down from the role after a little over a year in the position. Adding to the confusion was the fact that the BFP became deregistered as a political party in November 2012 following its failure to pay its annual registration fee. The current status of the party is therefore unclear.

With Kevin Carroll having become BFP Chairman and his cousin now sitting in prison for the best part of this year, will Lennon’s intention to transform the EDL into a fully-fledged political party remain, or will he rejoin the BFP now that Weston has stepped down? It seemed that one of the primary reasons for Lennon’s departure was linked to a failure to see eye-to-eye with Weston’s political agenda despite the party's near monomaniac obsession with Islam, but with Carroll in control, this difference will now in all likelihood have been removed. If the BFP is to continue, it would appear that it will now be the electoral arm of the EDL, although this poses questions both for the BFP’s existing membership and for many EDL supporters who are averse to involvement in electoral politics. It is unlikely that there will be any clarity on this score for quite some time to come, and it seems probable that those EDL protests that do take place in the coming months will be organised by local divisions rather than by the national leadership. 

EDL Solihull Demonstration

The Odd Couple: Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and Nikki Sinclaire

Yesterday’s announcement that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, alternatively known as Tommy Robinson, was leaving his position as joint Vice-Chairman of the BFP to focus on his leadership of the EDL came as a surprise to many. Quite what precipitated his decision is unclear, but this announcement comes only a fortnight after an unsubstantiated rumour circulated that Paul Weston had resigned from his position as BFP Chairman, a rumour that was swiftly rebutted. It begs the question as to who started this rumour and why?

In his interview with The Independent yesterday, Lennon (for the sake of brevity I shall avoid the double-barrelled formulation) stated:

"I am looking at how to change the EDL into a genuine political party but we can't put a time on it at the moment. We are looking at the 2014 elections in Europe.

"It [the BFP] just isn't for me, I want to stick to the EDL. I wanted to make this decision before I committed myself to campaigning for the BFP. I have not been involved in an election campaign for them yet, so it is the right time."

What was it about the BFP’s policy platform that caused Lennon to take this decision, if indeed it was a matter of policy that caused his departure? Whatever the underpinning cause happened to be, attempting to turn the EDL into a political party is an utterly pointless venture, being as it is a single-issue protest group. Lennon would be better off re-evaluating his movement’s aims, objectives and tactics, transforming it into a more tightly focused and effective campaigning vehicle independent of any particular political party. Although it has managed to establish itself in the public consciousness, the EDL has not, generally speaking, projected an image that would exert electoral appeal to anything other than a small hardcore of supporters. Irrespective of the fact that there are certain widely-recognised negative behaviours exhibited by Islamists in this country which the majority of the general public find abhorrent, voters are not going to cast their ballots for a party that makes tackling Islamism its number one issue, although they would of course be happy to vote for a party with a comprehensive policy platform that dealt appropriately with the Islamist problem as part of its wider policy mix. Voters are primarily concerned about the economy, public services, education, housing and immigration, not Islamism, no matter how much distaste they may possess for it.  

Does Lennon intend to transform the EDL into a political party with such a broad policy mix? This seems doubtful. For all of its flaws and fixation upon the Islamic issue, the BFP does at least profess to possess objectives other than tackling Islamism and Islamisation; the EDL does not. In this respect, Lennon’s move brings to mind the recent announcement by former UKIP MEP Nikki Sinclaire in connection with the creation of a new political party named ‘We Demand a Referendum’ (WDAR), which possesses no policy other than to secure a referendum on the UK’s continued membership of the EU. For some reason, The Sun threw its backing behind this venture last month, presumably because Murdoch no longer finds Cameron’s Conservative Party to his liking.

How peculiar it is, that both Lennon and Sinclaire have decided to leave single-issue fixated parties and establish new splinter parties focused purely upon Islam and the EU respectively. This is not the stuff of electoral politics, but of pressure group agitation, and given the obsession of both figures with these single issues, they would be best advised to keep out of electoral politics and instead concentrate upon building up convincing arguments and campaigns in support of their respective positions. A vote for either will be a wasted one; both parties will fail, and badly at that. Voters need to be presented with a credible alternative to which they can lend their support; a party that genuinely tackles both of these concerns alongside the pressing need to address those issues that are central to the winning of any campaign. The EDL will not be such a party, and neither will the WDAR.

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon: Leader of the EDL

  Nikki Sinclaire: Leader of 'We Demand a Referendum'

British Freedom’s 20 Point Plan: a cohesive blueprint, or a misguided muddle?

Following the British Freedom Party’s relaunch under the chairmanship of Paul Weston last November, the party’s website declared that a review of policy was being undertaken, and members of the public were solicited to volunteer their opinions as to what those policies should be. However, at the same time, something new appeared on the BFP’s website: a ‘20 Point Plan’. The speed with which it was posted suggests that responsibility for the formulation of the 20 points lay with Weston himself. Clearly, he wished to stamp his mark upon the party and indicate that the BFP was making a fresh start under his leadership, but the ‘Plan’ that appeared sat uneasily with the party’s general policy platform, and continues to do so. Moreover, a number of its individual elements to a certain extent contradict each other, and as a whole, it resembles more a melange of specific policy pledges and general vague moral statements, than a cohesive thought through political programme. Woodrow Wilson forwarded only 14 points for the reordering of the entire international order in post-WWI Europe, whereas the BFP have chosen to provide us with 20. This is too high a figure.

The criticisms that follow are necessary, for it pains the author to see people joining a party that is potentially setting off on a very unsound footing, which could thereby lead to disappointment for all. If not addressed, the BFP is likely to have its electoral chances hamstrung by misjudged strategic decisions taken during its initial stages of development; it will continue to increase in size, for a time, but its membership will in all likelihood plateau at a relatively low level. Another party will then be required to address the issue which the BFP makes its primary focus – Islamisation – as part of a broader and more balanced policy mix, for the BFP will not be able to do so because of electoral failure.

Turning to the '20 Point Plan' itself, which is dealt with point by point below, it contains pledges of widely varying degrees of significance and scope, with the minor and highly specific – ‘19. Allow pubs the choice of operating as smoking or non-smoking establishments’ – sitting alongside the major and general – ‘12. Diminish the public sector and government interference in the private sector’ –  and the general and vague – ‘20. Live by Christianity’s Golden Rule: “Do unto others as thou wouldst be done by.”’ What is immediately striking about this is its total lack of focus and undergirding ideological foundation; it reads like a random wish list, with no indication as to the party’s ultimate purpose and the relative importance of each of its constituent points.

Point 1: ‘Introduce a US style First Amendment guaranteeing Free Speech’.

This is good, but earlier in its incarnation the plan included a pledge to increase censorship that thankfully has been dropped. It begs the question however: does the spirit of censorship still lurk within the BFP?

Point 2: ‘Leave the profoundly undemocratic European Union’.

As with point 1, this position is to be commended, although perhaps the statement could be trimmed back to ‘Leave the European Union’ which makes it sound rather less like an indignant Peter Hitchens.

Point 3: ‘Abolish the Human Rights Act, which benefits only foreign criminals/terrorists’.

The Human Rights Act as it exists does need to be abolished, but it is incorrect to state that it ‘benefits only foreign criminals/terrorists’, for this is manifestly not true. A pledge to simply ‘Abolish the Human Rights Act and replace it with legislation not open to abuse as is the case with the current act’ would be more appropriate.

Point 4: ‘Halt any further immigration for a period of five years.’

It is true that we are overpopulated and growing increasingly so by the day, and that a strict immigration policy needs to be put in place. However, why is the pledge only for five years? The rationale for halting immigration needs to be made explicit. Does this include, hypothetically speaking, a respectful Japanese Honda executive and his family taking up temporary residence to oversee a new project creating jobs in a productive sphere of our manufacturing economy? Would it apply to expats who had emigrated to Australia, Canada or New Zealand who wished to return to Britain? This statement needs to be clarified and rewritten.

Point 5: ‘Deport foreign criminals, seditious dual nationality Islamists and illegal immigrants.’

Agreed.

Point 6: ‘Abolish all multicultural and equality quangos.’

Agreed. However, as with point 3 consideration needs to be given to the legitimate welfare of some people – specifically those with disabilities – who could be adversely affected by such a blanket statement. Safeguards should be put in place to ensure that where practicable those suffering from disabilities who wish to work and are capable of working, are able to do so.

Point 7: ‘Halt and turn back all aspects of the Islamisation of Britain, including Sharia finance.’

Agreed. It would be strengthened if it were to include a pledge to abolish inhumane religious slaughter.

Point 8: ‘Drastically reduce crime – criminals should fear the consequences of their behaviour.’

This has the ring of ‘Tough on crime. Tough on the causes of crime.’ It is just about as credible, and is not a policy statement. Does it really mean anything? There is a certain unappealing tub-thumping windiness about it, which almost makes the reader ponder: does the BFP wish to introduce Shariah?

Point 9: ‘Repair the damage wreaked by the progressive educational establishment.’

Define the ‘damage’ and ‘progressive educational establishment’, as well as make clear what it is that you intend to do. This statement, as with a number of others, highlights the uncertainty as to what the 20 Point Plan actually is. Is it, a) a statement of moral principles; b) a statement of general political intent; c) a list of specific policy commitments.

Point 10: ‘Promote British values and assimilation, rather than multiculturalism and division.’

Insert the word ‘cultural’ before ‘assimilation’.

Point 11: ‘Rebuild Britain’s Armed Forces to 1980 levels.’

Why? Our security environment is now completely different to that which existed during the era of the high Cold War. We need a proper strategic review of our armed forces, and for them to be reprofiled to create a defensive force that is capable of meeting the needs of defending our homeland and specific interests at a further remove.

Point 12: ‘Diminish the public sector and government interference in the private sector.’

This statement can be used to conceal all manner of ills, and provide cover for potentially axing services required by, for example, the elderly. Given that the plan makes no mention of foreign capital or economic policy other than this, it suggests that services such as the NHS could be threatened by profit-making US transnational corporations. This should be a cause of some disquiet, and presents the most glaring mismatch between the BFP’s position pre-Weston, and its position today. The BFP’s economic direction of travel is now a matter of serious concern, and represents a major flaw in its approach. Weston recently announced that only ‘Capitalism’ was compatible with ‘Western Civilisation’, thereby revealing a doctrinaire adherence to a failed model of economics that has led us to the current globalised mess in which we find ourselves.

Point 13: ‘Withdraw troops from all areas where we are not directly threatened.’

Agreed.

Point 14: ‘Cancel foreign aid to countries which do not deserve or need it.’

Agreed, although this could benefit from being rephrased.

Point 15: ‘End welfare payments to immigrants; they must pay for their housing and children.’

This statement is somewhat vague. How are ‘immigrants’ defined? This requires clarification. Moreover, should this not be considered a subsidiary, although important element of, immigration policy?

Point 16: ‘Ensure no elderly person lives in fear, and can afford both heat and food in the winter.’

The sentiment is fine, but what does it mean practically? It sounds like something taken from a rewritten version of the New Testament. Given the party’s proposed attack on the public sector, how are the large numbers of pensioners on low incomes going to be provided with lives not bedevilled by poverty? An explicit statement regarding pensions, minimum incomes and home care is required, otherwise this is meaningless.

Point 17: ‘Ensure that a no class-A drugs policy is enforced.’

The author is of the opinion that such drugs, along with alcohol abuse, unhealthy diets and lack of physical activity, are all potential causes of early death and psychological problems. Whilst not advocating the use of class-A drugs, the author subscribes to a non-prohibitionist stance and supports decriminalisation for individual users. The current drugs problem should be viewed from within the wider context of public health and education and should be approached accordingly. A punitive approach needs to be directed towards the criminal gangs that often target young girls, get them hooked on heroin and then pimp them out, not at the users themselves. 

Point 18: ‘Promote morality, marriage, the family, the community and the nation state.’

How? This is not really a policy, and these matters should simply be embedded within specific policies. The first two words smack of potential cant.

Point 19: ‘Allow pubs the choice of operating as smoking or non-smoking establishments.’

A fair suggestion, but why does this point rank alongside leaving the EU and halting immigration for five years as a policy priority? Although perfectly fine as a policy, it is not a first rank concern.

Point 20: ‘Live by Christianity’s Golden Rule: “Do unto others as thou wouldst be done by.”’

Once again, fine sentiments, but leave religion out of the equation: this is Britain, not the US Bible Belt. Is it a statement of policy? No. So, how would this imply the BFP should treat young people who find themselves in the miserable position of having become addicted to heroin or crack? Would the party punish them for this ‘sin’ by criminalising them, or would it treat them with compassion by helping them to overcome their addiction through treatment and rehabilitation?

Conclusion

The BFP needs to decide what it is for and to develop a clear and cohesive plan with a handful of core objectives rather than the above list which is disjointed and chaotic. It needs to define its ideology, and to include those elements of its '20 Points' that it wishes to retain in its manifesto. Has it failed to do so because there exists a significant split between its founding principles and those of its new leadership? Currently, its '20 Point Plan' appears to be a Neocon graft onto a nationalist body, speaking with the voice of Peter Hitchens. As such, its tone at times drifts into cant, which grates on the nerves of many people.


It seems odd that nowhere amongst these points is there any criticism of globalism and globalisation. How many nationalists who have recently joined feel at ease with this omission, as well as the lack of focus on industrial and economic policy? Might they not find their views better accommodated within a new, democratically accountable and forward-looking nationalist party? If, as someone with a degree of sympathy towards the BFP, the author has managed to find so many flaws with its '20 Point Plan', how many will its opponents find? How would the general public perceive it? Overall, it needs a serious rethink. It would benefit from addressing the questions and concerns raised here.

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

Introduction

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

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

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

The Failure of the BNP

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

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

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

A New Party

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

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

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

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

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

The Weaknesses of existing Parties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Launch of the Centre for Democratic Nationalism

Saturday 4^th February proved to be a chilly day as snow fell over much of England, including over the Salthorn Working Men’s Club in Oakenshaw. Nonetheless, this modest venue was to serve as the location for a meeting of delegates from as far afield as Liverpool, Lincolnshire and Wales. By all accounts, the nationalists located within generated much heat, but was there much light?

Undeterred by the adverse weather, upwards of 40 individuals from a number of nationalist political parties and organisations had gathered for the inaugural meeting of Andrew Brons’s Centre for Democratic Nationalism, billed as a “a catalyst for nationalist unity” with its declared aim being “to facilitate the emergence of a united British Nationalist Movement.” Speakers included Andrew Brons, Peter Rushton and Jim Lewthwaite, who are reported to have delivered “great speeches without actually managing to offer any solutions”, with the focus being very much upon enumerating all of the things that are wrong with our country.

The meeting lasted some four hours, with 90 minutes being given over to the main speakers and the rest of the time being left open for debate arising from the speeches and questions from the audience. Capably overseeing proceedings was Ivan Winters of the Democratic Nationalists. As ever, it would seem that there were almost as many perspectives as there were nationalists, with the 5% of views not common to all possibly assuming an undue significance, leading to much heated argument. Presumably, this should be expected given that delegates hailed from organisations as diverse as UKIP, the BNP, the British People’s Party and the British Movement. One or two of the ideas forwarded proved to raise a few eyebrows. To the best of my knowledge, nobody from either the English Democrats or the British Freedom Party was present.

Given that this was the initial meeting of the CDN, it is not that surprising that nothing of major substance was agreed, but evidently if it is to succeed in the longer term it needs to move beyond such gatherings, and to offer something positive and concrete. Without a focus it is likely that the nationalist scene will continue to fragment, and activists will drift to the English Democrats or the British Freedom Party for the want of anything better. The CDN should certainly function as a think tank, but as events with the Brent Group have recently shown, this alone is unlikely to be sufficient to maintain its long-term viability. A common vision with respect to the future of nationalist politics is lacking; of that there can be little doubt. Although a well-organised event, there was still an absence of clarity as to the future purpose of the CDN at its close. 

Should the CDN not also seek to launch or to endorse a new party? Although Andrew Brons himself has ruled out this option and has provided some pertinent reasons for not following such a course, some of us are of another opinion. The existing parties contending for the nationalist vote all possess significant flaws in both their policy and approach, which not only limit their appeal to the general public, but also prove to be an imperfect fit for many of a nationalist inclination. What should we do to remedy this? For the answers to that question, you shall have to wait, but not for long. 

CDN Founder Andrew Brons

Reflections on British Nationalism and the Foundation of the British Freedom Party: Part 1

Introduction
Following months of rancour within the BNP, a group of reformists has announced the creation of the British Freedom Party (BFP). Its founding has been precipitated by their failure to effectively challenge Nick Griffin’s hold on the leadership of the party and to introduce mechanisms for the democratic formulation of party policy and the appointment of key personnel. Furthermore, there were questions connected to a lack of transparency relating to party accounts and allegations of an absence of financial probity at the top of the party.

Thus, the imperative for the emergence of the new party was not ideological, but procedural. The BFP is therefore presumably what its founders would have liked the BNP to have become had the Nick Griffin/Jim Dowson clique either stepped down or been dislodged. That said, one of the leading voices amongst the BFP is Lee Barnes, the BNP’s former ‘legal eagle’, who fell out with Griffin then swiftly fell in with the reformist camp led by Eddy Butler who sought to challenge Griffin for the party leadership. Being a prolific blogger and commentator on nationalist forums, Barnes has to date been the main source of information about the BFP and its ideological stance. For Barnes, the BFP is not a party founded upon racial nationalism, ethno-nationalism or civic nationalism, but upon cultural nationalism. In effect, this is a beefed-up civic nationalism with a greater emphasis upon the cultural assimilation of the immigrant population.

The objectives of the BFP published on the Advanced Ape blog are certainly ones to which I subscribe:

The objects of the Party shall exist to defend and restore the freedoms, traditions, unity, identity, democracy and independence of the British people, to establish full sovereignty over all our national affairs by restoring the supremacy of the British Parliament, to withdraw from the European Union, to promote democratic British nationalist principles, to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural interests of the British people and to preserve and promote the ancestral rights and liberties of the British people as enshrined in the British Constitution.

The BFP now enters a crowded field of parties touting for the nationalist vote, for besides the BNP there are also UKIP, the English Democrats, the National Front (NF) and the England First Party (EFP). There are probably other miniscule groupings that I have not mentioned, but if I’ve not heard of them, you can guarantee that they certainly will not make a breakthrough. Besides these, we have the anti-Islamisation street movement of the English Defence League (EDL). None, in my opinion, possess the right mix of policies, objectives and organisation to be able to make a mainstream breakthrough at the current time. All lack credibility. What is equally clear is that there has never been a greater need for a moderate nationalist party to break through into the mainstream. Before proceeding to outline why, it will first be necessary to clarify my terms.

Why Nationalism? What is Nationalism?
I recognise that my reasons for favouring nationalism will not be shared by many others who describe themselves as nationalists, and this of course grows out of the fact that what is meant by the term ‘nationalism’ is hotly disputed and possesses a wide variety of definitions. So, before venturing further I shall provide a definition of what I consider to be a ‘nation’ (as those of you familiar with theoretical writings on this subject will note, my position shares a great deal with that of A.D. Smith), but given the limited scope of this piece I shall at this stage neither go into great depth nor provide bibliographic citations in line with standard academic practice as used in the Harvard System.

An ethnie is a group defined by a combination of common biological descent, common culture and common history. These are the preconditions upon which a collective ethnic sentiment is forged and rests; without these, there can be no distinct ‘we’. A nation is a politically mobilised ethnie that is either in possession of a state, is actively seeking statehood, or has lost statehood and is seeking its restoration. Mobilisation thus proceeds upon the basis of securing the interests (however they may be defined) of the nation as a whole. Nationalism therefore represents the purest form of democratic politics, for the nation and the demos and their interests are identified as one. Without seeking to further the interests of the nation, politicians of whatever stated hue are acting against the well-being of the demos, and are thus by definition anti-democrats. Politicians and journalists who act against the interests of the nation use pejorative terms such as ‘populism’ and ‘demagoguery’ to stigmatise the genuine articulation of the people’s interests and opinions by anti-oligarchic rivals.

Nationalism therefore, is nothing more than the political pursuit of the well-being of the members of a given nation. It is the purest expression of democratic principles and thus stands opposed to oligarchy and globalism. Thus, unlike what its leftist detractors claim, nationalism is not an ideology of ‘hate’; nationalism is not ‘xenophobic’; nationalism is not synonymous with imperialism (in fact, genuine nationalists deplore imperialism for they recognise the rights of other nations to self-determination and free political expression) and nationalism is not ‘racist’. Nationalism defines itself in a positive fashion by pursuing what is best for the people collectively, not through seeking conflict with other nations.

Nationalism seeks to liberate the potential of all members of the nation, not of any one class or special interest group. This is why those on the Left detest nationalism, for they are wedded to the belief that international class identities trump all others, and that nations should be ‘smashed’ to usher in their Socialist or Communist Millennium. Nationalism stands for pluralism and true diversity, whereas the visions of leftists and capitalist globalists seek a totalitarian uniformity.

I therefore define myself as a nationalist because I wish to see the best for the members my nation collectively; the nation provides the best context in which individuals can flourish and reach their full potential. I wish to see other peoples also concern themselves with building better lives and futures for their own nations. Nationalism represents the best path for the whole of humanity, and does not in and of itself lead to conflict.

Nationalism is not imperialism. Nationalism is not fascism. Nationalism is not Nazism. Nationalism does not entail ethnic cleansing. Nationalism is democracy in action. Nationalism promotes the conservation of resources and the environment. Nationalism is diversity.

Globalism generates hate. Globalism generates conflict. Globalism facilitates economic imperialism. Globalism is oligarchy in action. Globalism promotes the degradation of resources and the environment. Globalism is uniformity.

Which Nation is Mine?
For all of the above reasons I am a nationalist, but of what type? I am English. In those three words there is much significance, for although I also see myself as British, as European and more widely (moving into the realm of ideological belonging) a Westerner and a rationalist, the ‘English’ element denotes what I consider to be my nationality. Strangely though, although the English are arguably one of the oldest nations, they do not currently possess a statehood of their own, being instead cemented into the UK and the EU. Within the UK the Scots, the Welsh and the Unionist and Republican populations of Ulster all possess their own distinct forms of in-group ethnic sentiment as well as political expression in their own assemblies and, in the Scottish case, Parliament. The English on the other hand, have to make do with Westminster which of course represents the whole of the UK. In this respect therefore, the English can technically be said to lack a political existence as a nation.

Devolution has created a situation in which distinct political dynamics have been established in Scotland and to a lesser extent Wales (the situation in Ulster has always been different), which mean that they increasingly see themselves as separate from England. They also have their own ostensible nationalist parties in the form of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, which are in reality defined exclusively through opposition to England and the English because otherwise they embrace multiculturalism and do not therefore behave in the manner of true nationalist parties. The launch of a British rather than an English Freedom Party thus seems to me to be a tactical mistake. England has borne the brunt of mass immigration, multiculturalism and Islamisation, and it is in England that there exists the greatest pent up demand for a true national democratic party. An English Freedom Party could still be a unionist party, but, any continuation of the United Kingdom needs to be one that is ratified by its composite nations and, irrespective of its outcome, England needs a parliament of its own.