Introduction
It seems that the internet is abuzz with news and rumours
pertaining to new political parties these days, although quite how new their
content may be, is another matter altogether. Some of them are focused on
single issues, whereas others see themselves as successors to a small
ethnonationalist party in terminal decline. Not unnaturally, some readers of
this blog may have concluded, given the statement made here earlier this year,
that one or two of these rumoured new parties may in some way be linked with
this announcement, or backed by this blog; they are not. Why this should be the
case will become clear in the paragraphs below. However, before outlining
precisely what it is that we propose, and characterising in broad ideological
terms what we are and the values that we stand for in the next article, it will
first be necessary to provide a digressive introduction, for it is an
unfortunate fact that from the outset it is likely that we will be attacked and
deliberately misrepresented by our political foes. It is in recognition of this
coming campaign of disinformation that this outline is given, so that
unprejudiced readers may adjudge for themselves what we truly are and wish to
achieve, rather than running the risk of having them misled by the defamatory
lies and distortions of those who oppose the emergence of a genuine
non-globalist political alternative in our country today.
Earlier this year, I wrote a series of articles that
outlined the need for the creation of a moderate political party that placed
the national interest first; that had amongst its primary goals the advancement
of the material well-being of the people of this country and the recognition
that sovereignty inheres within the people and flows from them, not from any
supranational agency or body. Part of the recent crisis of confidence in
democracy has arisen from a lack of accountability and responsiveness on the
part of political elites and, although it has not been articulated quite so
frequently, of a nascent transnational economic stratum to which they are
linked, and with which they overlap in terms both of outlook and membership.
The intent of what was written therefore was to turn attention to this
democratic deficit, and to propose a remedy in the form of the creation of a
credible and moderate political party, which unlike the Conservative, Labour,
Liberal Democrat or Green parties would not advance the principle of globalism,
but that of popular national participatory democracy. Whereas our current party
political system militates against choice and in favour of technocratic
managerial authoritarianism of one flavour or another, our proposed party
advocates a thoroughgoing democratisation.
Marx and Hayek: In Globalism we trust
For those on the Far Left, the principle of national
sovereignty is anathema upon doctrinaire grounds, for it is believed to hamper
the coming of the desired-for socialist millennium, whereas for the capitalist
advocates of globalism, national sovereignty is seen as an unwelcome hindrance
to the transnational movement of capital, goods and labour. The two therefore,
have become vigorous advocates of an interrelated set of ideologies:
transnationalism; globalism; cosmopolitanism and ‘diversity’. The disciples of
Marx and Hayek have paradoxically united in their opposition to such
inconveniences as national self-determination and democracy, with both
promoting a politico-economic fatalism that portrays globalisation as an
unstoppable, inevitable and desirable process. There is no conspiracy as such
at play here, but rather the complex interaction of different material
interests and ideologies embodied within and articulated by a plethora of
non-state, sub-state and transnational actors, whether they be commercial,
political or cultural. The revolutionary Marxist Left has since its inception
sought not to ameliorate what it terms ‘the contradictions of capitalism’, but
to exacerbate them, so as to try and bring about an intensification of human
suffering, and thereby precipitate a revolutionary situation through mass
radicalisation. It is their hope that the current global financial crisis can
be exploited in their favour; globalisation, they believe, is their friend.
Elements of the Far Left have thus welcomed the coming of globalisation
and the promotion of its attendant ideology of globalism, and a number of
‘radical’ theories and stances developed by the New Left and US Civil Rights
Movement since the 1960s, have been eagerly appropriated by transnational
corporations (TNCs) and agencies (TNAs), to lend a veneer of ‘progressivism’
and ‘morality’ to their narrow self-interested operations. Thus it is that the
discourse of ‘diversity’ and ‘anti-racism’, largely developed within the
context of the politics of the United States, a racially cleft society of
immigrants, has been taken up by TNCs and TNAs and employed as a means of
challenging the legitimacy of nation-states, promoting the dismantling of
border controls to facilitate mass immigration which drives down labour costs,
assists in the stripping away of European workers’ rights, and thereby enables
an assault to be made upon European welfare states that they portray as being
‘too costly’. The latter is untrue, but TNCs possess sufficient financial clout
to be able to promote this message through a compliant mass media that they
effectively own. Our party opposes this attack upon the material conditions of
working people in the UK, whilst at the same time not placing blame upon the
immigrants who have come here genuinely to work, for they have merely taken
advantage of a near de facto open borders policy.
The concept of popular sovereignty, of political authority
being anchored in and flowing from the people – from the nation – has been
subjected to an ongoing and sustained ideological and material assault,
undermining the very basis, and hollowing out the substance of democracy
itself. Part of this attack upon national self-determination in the UK has
consisted of the relatively recently propagated myth that ‘we are a nation of
immigrants’, whereas prior to the post-war waves of mass immigration which this
narrative has been devised to accommodate and legitimise, the situation was
rather different. The Far Left scorns popular national democracy as ‘bourgeois
democracy’, whereas the TNCs and TNAs do not find it conducive to their smooth
operation, so these various actors have found it convenient to recast defenders
of popular democracy as ‘xenophobes’, ‘bigots’ and ‘racists’, fabricating a
discourse about their constituting a new ‘Far Right threat’, lumping them in
with the small number of people who genuinely merit such appellations.
This seeming digression has been provided for one
straightforward yet highly salient reason: the proponents of globalism are
willing to do whatever they deem necessary to discredit and destroy any
opposition to their globalist objectives, and in order to do this, they employ
the most potent weapons available in the political arsenal: accusing their
opponents of being ‘Far Right’, ‘racist’, ‘fascist’ or ‘Nazi’. In doing so,
they not only manage to target those who do deserve such labels – a vanishingly
small number of people in any country including our own – but those of us who
do not. These smear tactics are calculated and deliberate, and once thrown, the
mud tends to stick no matter how undeserving the target. How then should we
popular democrats rebut such allegations? It is in fact, quite straightforward.
The first thing to consider when rebutting the above
accusations is that those who employ these smears fail to define their terms.
So, we must define them, and once they are defined, it is but a straightforward
matter to prove that their allegations are baseless. Let us start by turning to
the term ‘fascism’.
What is Fascism?
Fascism is an anti-democratic authoritarian movement that
takes many forms, but at its core lie the following features: a cult of
anti-rational violence, militarism, authoritarianism and national or racial
supremacism, often combined with territorial expansionism. The role of law is
disregarded, being replaced by the arbitrary exercise of power undertaken by
the governing party and its authoritarian leadership. Moreover, many
definitions refer to a fusion of corporate and state interests, with private
interest being portrayed as embodying the public good. A single ideology is
promulgated and enforced, with dissident views being suppressed, and those who
articulate them persecuted.
It is traditionally characterised as being of the ‘Right’,
but combines features from various elements of the political spectrum (‘Left’
and ‘Right’, particularly in practical terms, are now largely antiquated labels
and should to all intents and purposes be discarded, although they still
possess a certain emotive appeal for those who believe that they belong to one
or the other).
What we are not:
Fascists
We are not fascists, for we believe in intellectual
pluralism, freedom of speech and expression and the principle of holding
politicians to account; we favour thoroughgoing democratisation, not authoritarianism.
We are resolutely opposed to political violence and to the
ready recourse to military adventurism in foreign affairs. Militarily, we stand
for a policy of neutrality and non-interventionism overseas, holding to the
principle that our armed forces should act in a purely defensive capacity.
We are not xenophobes or supremacists, and recognise and
appreciate the genuine expression of human cultural, ethnic and linguistic
diversity around the globe, as well as the right to assert our cultural primacy
in our own country through ensuring that all official communication is in our
native languages, that there is one common law for all, and that children are
taught our history and traditions in our schools. All peoples should be
accorded the inalienable right of cultural self-determination in their own home
territories. We respect and value cultural pluralism, but we reject
state-imposed ‘multiculturalism’, which is a different affair altogether.
We oppose the fusion of corporate and state power, and seek
instead to ensure that our citizens are protected both from unwarranted state
intrusion into their domestic lives, and corporate attempts to drive down wages
and depress the general standard of living.
Conspiracy Theorists
We do not believe that there is any cohesive global elite or
one in the making that possesses any ‘plan’ bent upon global domination.
Instead, we recognise that international relations are governed by a complex
interplay of competing and overlapping material and ideological interests
embodied within states, transnational corporations, supranational institutions,
NGOs, social movements and the media, that at times converge to produce
statements and policies deemed to be mutually beneficial and expedient by a
number of these actors, whilst at others generating conflict between them. The
idea of there being a single aspirant hegemonic force at play in global
politics is utterly misguided and unfounded. We therefore do not subscribe to
any conspiracy theories centred upon the following: Bilderbergers; UN New World
Order; the Illuminati; Jews; interdimensional lizards or any other fantastical
force capable of being dreamt up within the mind of a conspiracy theorist.
Racists
We are not racists, for we believe that individuals each possess
their own merits and aptitudes irrespective of their racial background. To
treat someone in a negative manner because they happen to be of a different
race is simply wrong. The selection of candidates in the workplace should be
based upon merit alone: the right candidate for the job in question. No
favouritism should be displayed in the form of ethnic and racial quotas, or
associated ancillary measures promoting the creation of ethnic and racial
pressure groups, as is the case today.
Concluding Remarks
It should now be clear from what has been written that we
are not proposing some thuggish, authoritarian, anti-rational politics and
system of governance as elements of the Far Left will doubtless claim, but
something altogether different: a broadening and deepening of democratic
practice intended to promote the well-being of the nation.
Having spelt out what our party is not, the next instalment
will outline our broad policy platform and objectives. If after reading this
you should find it to your liking, we invite you to become involved in making
this party a success. We need a fresh, viable political alternative to the
globalist options currently set before us, and the time for the launch of a
party embodying such principles is ripe. We cannot bring this about alone, and
need to draw in dedicated people with a diverse range of talents. It is up to
you.
