Review: ‘Angry, White and Proud’, Channel 4, 15 January 2015

“I saw my first dead jihadi when I was ten years old.” (Paul, commenting on his childhood recollection of a Muslim Turk who had crossed the Green Line in Cyprus). 

“Don’t tarnish us all as racists, bigots, Nazis.” (Andy, speaking after recounting how his son died at the age of 19 defending one of his comrades whilst on his first tour of duty in Afghanistan).

“There’s no threats of violence. Yet.” (Colin, reflecting upon the possible direction of future direct action by splinter groups within the nationalist movement).  

The narrator opened the documentary by revealing that he had spent a year getting to know the individuals whose personal perspectives and stories formed the primary subject matter of the programme. That he had successfully gained a degree of trust was apparent from the sense of ease with which the subjects of his piece spoke about their personal motivations for involvement in anti-Islamist direct action. It was thus an insightful piece of journalism infused with human interest, and a degree of sympathy for individuals who often indulged in actions and behaviours that would ordinarily elicit little other than unease, if not outright revulsion.  

The film provided a snapshot of just one of the small groups – the South London Infidels (SLI) – to have emerged from the fragmentation of the English Defence League (EDL), and from what was on display here, the EDL of old appeared to be very moderate by comparison. Although each of the SLI members interviewed claimed a political motivation – specifically an anti-Islamist one – for their actions, it was evident that for some this was indeed simply a peg upon which they hung their innate anger, as was made most clear by Colin, who at the beginning of the programme revealed that he had been a “tearaway as a youth”, before graduating to football hooliganism, the ‘Far Right’ (interestingly he here interjected that it could just as well have been the Left, as they’re “both the same”) and anti-Islamism. He stated that he had joined the nationalist movement six years ago and that he hated Muslims “with a passion!” Together with someone named Jason, he had set up the SLI. 

Apparently, Colin’s own mother habitually refers to him as “a dick”. Towards the end of the programme, he had gravitated towards more hard-core interpretations of nationalism, associating himself with individuals sympathising with the Golden Dawn, as well as Combat 18. He had come to believe that the formation of some kind of militia or ‘task force’ to deal with the Islamist threat was both desirable and inevitable. So far, so bad. Colin confessed that “I’m in a bit of a bad place at the moment”, before later going on to admit that he didn’t like himself, and that he’d directed his self-hatred outwards in anger channelled through the comradeship of the groups to which he had attached himself. Worse still, he claimed that he knew of violent actions that had recently taken place, but that he was not prepared to divulge details, as he did not wish to incriminate his sources or the perpetrators of these violent acts. He was thus the living embodiment of the far-right extremist that everyone loves to hate: the belligerent, self-loathing ex-football hooligan skinhead turned defender of patriotic values, advocating violence against his objects of hate. To top it all, he was half Italian and half Irish.  

Paul, another SLI member, was born in Tottenham of Cypriot parentage, hence his nightmarish childhood recollection of an incident in Cyprus. In talking about the group’s demonstrations, he stated: “We’re not looking for violence, but believe me, if we’re attacked, we’ll defend ourselves.” He said this ahead of a demonstration in Brighton shortly after St George’s Day, where it was anticipated that there would be a confrontation with counter-demonstrators. Paul and his fellow SLI members were not to be disappointed on this score, as ‘anti-fascist’ campaigners and ‘nationalists’ got into a bit of a ruck and threw sundry pieces of street furniture around a Brighton street. Neither a good day for the locals, nor the police. The violence that was traded between the two sides seemed to bear witness to Colin’s comment that the Far Right and the Far Left were in this respect alike. Paul however, disowned one tenet of traditional ‘Far Right’ belief: “No, I’m not a racist. I think that’s offensive.” Although, unlike Colin, Paul did not advocate the formation of a militia, by the end of the documentary he stated that he thought that “we will end up in a sectarian war,” and that this would inevitably lead to the formation of a militia if the Government fails to act sufficiently strongly to combat radical Islam. 

The SLI activities that were shown – marching in Brighton and latterly in Rotherham in connection with the cover-up of mass child abuse by Pakistani taxi drivers because of ‘cultural sensitivities’, turning up outside of Regent’s Park Mosque to confront Anjem Choudary, and appearing at a Muslim Brotherhood bookshop – all seemed to involve a great deal of shouting, ill temper and the threat (sometimes the use of) violence. It was a depressing display. Clearly, many who are involved in this group and others like it are in it primarily for the adrenaline kick that they obtain from indulging their violent impulses, but others – such as Andy – have evidently become involved in these groups because they feel that their concerns regarding Islamism are not being adequately addressed.

All in all, it made for dispiriting viewing. Islamism could be tackled and defeated quite easily in this country if our political leaders possessed the will, but it seems that with few exceptions, they do not. “Why not?” you may ask. It would appear that the unwillingness to act derives from a combination of factors, such as the internalised belief that multiculturalism and cultural relativism are ‘a good thing’, a desire not to alienate Muslim voters, and, most importantly of all, the socially corrosive impact of Saudi and Qatari capital, and the vigorous export of Wahhabi ideology by the Saudis. Out of the high-profile electable political parties, UKIP might be willing to tackle some of these problems, but, I suspect, not all of them.

Ed Miliband’s bloodless Conception of Englishness

This morning Ed Miliband delivered a speech at the Royal Festival Hall, ostensibly addressing the question of England and its relationship to the United Kingdom, even touching upon the nature of English identity whilst predictably recoiling from recognising the English as a distinct people. Naturally, the fate of the United Kingdom is of rather more than theoretical concern to the Labour Party, for if Scotland were to become independent, it would remove a large tranche of Labour MPs from Westminster, perhaps depriving the party of the chance to again form a government in a truncated union or England.

That Miliband has bothered to mention England and the English highlights growing Labour concern that the party has lost touch with the English working class, and must be seen as in all likelihood prompted by Jon Cruddas who is working on a policy review intended to renew Labour’s appeal to its traditional support base. Whereas Miliband’s speech was not billed as such, its content could thus be viewed as presaging the tentative introduction of the ‘Blue Labour’ concept (although 'Blue Labour' is said to have been "effectively disbanded" in July 2011, the party would be wise to heed its recommendations with respect to immigration and its critique of neoliberalism) of which Cruddas is said to be one of the leading exponents, occupying to a certain extent the territory claimed by the ‘Red Tory’ idea. Although both seek to capitalise upon a sense of English alienation from mainstream political parties generated by the latter’s promotion of globalisation and mass immigration, the ‘Blue Labour’ and ‘Red Tory’ approaches affect concern about these issues, whilst neither tackling them nor wishing to do so. Each is fashioned so as to present a reassuring message to the electorate, an anodyne for the dying English patient which is being ushered out of existence to make way for new blood from overseas.

Returning to the ‘substance’ of Ed Miliband’s speech, he emphasised how he believes that “multiple allegiances” are stronger than single ones and that the “debate about nationhood and identity can’t be left to one part of the United Kingdom.” As ever, although this speech was billed as being about England and Englishness, Miliband could not restrain his enthusiasm for globalist internationalism from breaking through, referring to the need “to embrace a positive outward looking version of English identity” and an outward looking patriotism. Heaven forbid that the English should for a moment reflect and perceive themselves to be a distinct nation and people bound by common ties of culture, history, language and descent!

Miliband, as in previous speeches, employed the parental refugee theme, outlining his parents’ flight from Nazism and subsequent settlement in England, which whilst offering them “a new home . . . allowed them to stay true to who they were.” In this way, he underscored his belief in multiculturalism: “Britain is a country where you can have more than one identity; more than one home.” Yes, that is the case, but it does not strike me as desirable for swathes of the population here not only to self-identify as Pakistanis, but to also possess Pakistani passports, Pakistani attitudes and a Pakistani animus towards the English. “Multiple allegiances” in this case are no “source of strength”, but rather one of discord and weakness.

One of the most striking aspects of Miliband’s speech was that he repeatedly referred to the Scots, the Welsh and the English and the “false choice” that was proffered between these various identities and Britishness. Of course, in this respect he is correct, for we are all native peoples of the island of Britain and thus by definition simultaneously a member of one of these three peoples and British, but it did seem to be telling that he did not acknowledge the real problems that can arise from cleft identities nurtured by multiculturalism such as ‘British’-Somali or ‘British’-Pakistani, etc.

In mentioning English culture, Miliband emphasised that musicians, artists and scientists were characterised by their “constantly moving across national boundaries”, and his speech was peppered with references to being “outward looking” and “internationalist”. In other words, whilst purporting to address and acknowledge the importance of England and Englishness, Miliband was simultaneously reducing England to a territorial expression and Englishness to a bloodless malleable cultural construct essentially devoid of substance, continuity and distinctiveness. By adopting such a vapid approach to the question of England and Englishness, Miliband was thereby able to talk about “English identity [which for the Labour Party] has tended to be a completely closed book that people have shied away from.” Although Miliband may today have opened a book whose cover displayed the Cross of St George, its contents consisted of the same old Labour globalist internationalism. Whilst those such as Miliband may think that Englishness consists of nothing more than a flag and a bit of bunting, the English themselves know this not to be the case.

The True Enemy of Nationalism

Guest Article by Mr Brigantian

Anyone who has supported/followed/voted for or had a cursory interest in the British nationalist movement will know that it has supposedly always been held back by a combination of the Left-Wing media, the 'all powerful Jews', Marxist troublemakers and state infiltrators.

If you take on board what is written on certain nationalist websites and blogs they have foiled our attempts to be seen as a respectable and credible electoral force time and time again. They combine their dark forces to split our ranks, denigrate and demonise decent law abiding members and publish lies about us. They have created an environment where it is almost impossible for a nationalist party to have its voice heard without having its words twisted beyond their original meaning.

Well, I believe that the main problem we have is far closer to home and I realise that what I am about to suggest isn't going to be popular but I believe it needs to be said.

The biggest enemy that nationalism has in this country is nationalists. Let me explain.

Whilst I accept that some of the aforementioned elements have had an effect on the progression of nationalist ideology, I think its own blindness to what is palatable to the general public and a burning need to always have a bogeyman on which to blame its shortcomings has been far more damaging.

A brief glance at the comments section on any site (or at least the ones that are willing to publish the opinions of those that disagree) reveals that there are almost as many definitions of nationalism as there are nationalists, and people fiercely and vociferously defend their position. 

While I think that debate is healthy, the sad fact is that all too often this descends into a pointless and damaging free for all where insults and accusations are the norm. Add to this the hateful minority who actively seek to undermine and destroy the efforts of those they consider 'soft' or too liberal then its a wonder that the other perceived 'malign forces' ever get a look-in.

It’s a sad fact of life that, in general, people are more vocal and passionate about things they dislike than things they do like, but instead of spending an inordinate amount of time and effort attacking those you disagree with, isn't it more productive to be constructive?

The harsh reality is that it is unlikely that any single party will be a perfect fit for everyone in every way. We all have to find one that is the best fit for us as individuals, and the one that we believe has the potential to grow into something that can affect a change for the better. We can't simply sit on the sidelines and grumble any more because time is running out. The current social and economic climate should be fertile ground for the growth of a moderate and sensible Nationalist party, yet we're doing a sterling job of ensuring that doesn't happen.

As far as the public perception is concerned, nationalists are still Nazi-obsessed anti-Semites, obsessed with outlandish conspiracy theories. This is why, despite the majority sharing some of our ideals, we make little to no headway in elections. We are constantly preaching to an ever decreasing number of converts and seem to have no idea how the rest of the population perceives us.

Times have changed yet we are resolutely standing still. We need to look at ourselves from the outside in, assess where we have gone wrong and be brutally honest with ourselves about our mistakes.

The cranks need to be sidelined and starved of the oxygen of publicity. We need to grow up and stop spending all our time arguing over the minutiae of policy, find some common ground and agree to work together.

We cannot be perceived as being obsessed with a single issue. What true nationalism offers us is the opportunity to make headway with the public based on sound economic policy. We need to focus on this.

We should be making hay while the sun shines yet we are treading water.

This is why I believe that the time has never been better for the emergence of a brand new, credible and electable nationalist political party. The current crop are never going to get us out of the mess we are in. Time is wasting, we need to make a move.

Beyond the Fringe: Conclusion and Announcement

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.

Conclusion

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.

In closing, I would also like to take the opportunity to thank all for their feedback, particularly those of you who have responded positively. Given your favourable comments, further suggestions would be welcome from (names in alphabetical order, those with real names first followed by pseudonyms): Lewis Allsebrook, Geoff Crompton, David Hamilton, Bert Leech, Peter Mills, Kevin Scott, Clive Wakley, Ivan Winters, ‘Adrian’, ‘Barry’, Bilbo, British Activism, Cygnus, For England, Goldenmerlin, Lanky Patriot, A Man from Brum, ManxmanGreenaugh, Mo, North-West Nationalist, Quiet Man, SerpentSlayer, Salford Nationalist and Silly Kuffar. Apologies are in order for anyone that I have omitted from this list. Mention of these individuals does not of course imply that they have necessarily endorsed this concept. 

Appendix
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 2 tackled the issue of which policies should form the bedrock of a new party.

• 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.

 

English Democrats' Performance in Doncaster: May 2012

It should perhaps come as a relief to the English Democrats that the electors of Doncaster voted in favour of retaining its mayoral system last Thursday, for following the local elections English Democrat Mayor Peter Davies remains the sole individual from that party to hold office in the borough. He himself was not up for re-election on this occasion, but the electors chose to retain the system by a margin of 61.7% to 37.8%. Just quite how far this is indicative of his personal popularity is difficult to gauge, but this result does seem to provide a clear popular endorsement of the system itself.

In the 2011 May local elections the English Democrats chose to contest twelve wards in Doncaster, whereas this year they fielded candidates in only seven. This tactic seems to have paid off, by perhaps enabling them to better concentrate their modest resources. Although on this occasion the party failed to secure elected representation, it did make tangible progress in the borough, with the average number of votes per candidate increasing from 642 to 754 despite a decline in turnout, and the average share increasing from 16.2% to 22.3%. Last year, the best share obtained was 23.3% in the Bentley Ward, whereas this time the highest proportion was obtained in Wheatley with 28.3%. The positions of the candidates improved too, for in 2011 the party achieved three second places, whereas this year it took five, with one third (just a few votes behind second place) and one fourth.

Although the English Democrats failed to make a breakthrough, these figures would seem to indicate that the presence of the mayor has accorded the party considerable public visibility and thereby generated a certain level of popular support, although this has yet to translate itself into councillors in this Labour stronghold. The future of the party however appears to be in question, as there is some dissent within the English Democrats regarding the leadership largely arising from the admission of a number of ex-BNP members, and there have been expressions of disappointment with the party's results this time around, for nationally it has not made any real headway. Moreover, the party is said to be in considerable debt.

The results below contrast this year's performance with last.

Bentley            681 (25.1%) / 739 (23.3%)

Bessacarr and Cantley        535 (12.9%) / 756 (15.9%)

Central            533 (17.7%) / didn't stand

Edenthorpe, Kirk Sandall & Barnby Dun        731 (19.9%) / 655 (14.8%)

Finningley        1163 (26%) / 1137 (21.2%)

Hatfield            827 (26%) / 673 (17.5%)

Wheatley          806 (28.3%) / 786 (22.9%)

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

Introduction
In Part I, the author considered the recent history of nationalist politics in Britain, examining the underpinning causes of failure, the weaknesses of existing parties contending for the nationalist vote, and the consequent need for a new nationalist party. In Part II, discussion shifted to the rather more difficult task of offering concrete proposals for a positive and viable policy alternative. In this final instalment, consideration moves to addressing the question of how to go about the practical task of communicating policy to the public and winning support. As such, it will be divided into the following sections: 1) the potential baseline of support for a nationalist party; 2) strategy; 3) tactics; 4) language, tone and focus and 5) party organisation and conduct. Should the suggestions contained within the ‘Beyond the Fringe’ series be positively received, thought will then need to be given to making this vision a reality, which can only happen of course, with your support and participation.

As the goal of a new party should be to advance the interests of members of the national community, indeed, of all loyal and culturally assimilated citizens, its supporters and activists should have the following at the forefront of their considerations: how is political office to be achieved? Without office, a new party will not be able to do anything to advance the interests of our people. Not every reader will concur with this judgement, yet if that should prove to be the case, there is much that can be done outside of the realm of party politics, whether that should be involvement in a protest movement such as the EDL, campaigning in pursuit of changing a specific aspect of policy such as bringing about an end to inhumane methods of religious slaughter, or cultural activity of various types such as writing, the visual arts and music.

To win the trust of voters, both a new party’s policy and approach must be: positive; focused; appealing; resonant and distinctive. Both the party and its candidates must embody probity, transparency, honesty and accountability. This of course is a tall order, particularly in the sphere of politics, but it is an ideal towards which we should seek to strive. To win elections trust of course is not enough, for a party also needs to be able to offer people the credible prospect of a better future. This, a nationalist programme can truly achieve, through focusing upon the economic, environmental and cultural benefits that it can confer, as illustrated in Part II.

The potential baseline of support for a nationalist party
What are the grounds for concluding that a credible nationalist party would be able to exert mass appeal in Britain? What indicators can be called upon to demonstrate the latent appetite for nationalism? As readers will be well aware, our national demography has been changing rapidly owing to mass immigration and differential birth-rates, but the following figures taken from the last EU and General Elections of 2009 and 2010 respectively, should provide an approximate baseline of the core nationalist vote for each type of election. It is important to differentiate between the two (and indeed, to separate them from local elections), as radically different dynamics are at play in each.

EU elections
In defining the potential core support of a credible, moderate nationalist party, votes cast for the following parties must be considered to be potentially available: the BNP; the English Democrats; UKIP and United Kingdom First (of this latter party the author knows next to nothing, other than that it secured 0.5% of the vote in the last EU elections). All of the aforementioned parties have enjoyed greater success in EU rather than Westminster elections, partly because party political tribalism tends to be weaker in the former, and partly also because they serve as the only means in which an emphatic rejection of the EU can be delivered at the ballot box. Moreover, the system of proportional representation used when electing MEPs enables candidates from other than the big three established national parties to break through and gain seats in the European Parliament. Thus UKIP returned a respectable number of MEPs in 2009, and the BNP won its first ever seats which were taken by Andrew Brons and Nick Griffin.

The national shares of the vote enjoyed in June 2009 were: UKIP – 16.5%; BNP – 6.2%; English Democrats – 1.8%; UK First – 0.5%, coming to a total of 25%, just shy of the Conservative Party’s winning share of 27.7%. The potential nationalist vote thus outstripped both that of the Labour (15.7%) and Liberal Democrat (13.7%) parties. However, it was not uniformly spread, and England was the country in which this vote was concentrated, unsurprising given the presence of other local nationalist parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This ballot also coincided with the height of the parliamentary expenses scandal, so voters were more inclined than usual to lend their votes to other parties, with the consequence that Labour experienced its worst drubbing in a national election since before the Second World War. Nonetheless, the fact that UKIP managed to gain MEPs in this and previous EU elections, thanks to the system of proportional representation employed, demonstrates that it should be possible for a new party to field candidates and win seats in the forthcoming elections to the European Parliament in 2014.

General elections
Turning now to the question of baseline support in general elections, this is, as one would expect, far lower. In May 2010 for example, in which the broadly defined nationalist parties performed far better than hitherto, the national shares of the vote secured broke down as follows: UKIP – 3.1% (917,832); BNP – 563,743 (1.9%); English Democrats – 0.2% (64,826). This brings the total to 5.2%. Once again however, these figures hide considerable variation in performance across the country, as these parties faired relatively poorly (or not at all in the case of the English Democrats) outside of England. What they also mask is the fact that in the majority of constituencies where both the BNP and UKIP fielded candidates, the BNP secured a higher share of the vote, but the BNP was unable to stand as many candidates as UKIP. Both UKIP and the BNP had hoped to make a Westminster breakthrough in 2010, but neither came near to winning a seat. Winning under a first past the post system is an extremely difficult task, especially when the nationalist vote is split.

The weakening of traditional party loyalties
What then, has changed since 2010, besides the implosion of the BNP? Most importantly perhaps, the Conservatives are now the main party of government, and despite having promised a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty and to drastically reduce immigration, they have done neither. Moreover, David Cameron is deeply unpopular with many grassroots Tories, which is why UKIP has seen a slight fillip in its fortunes. Although like Labour voters many Tories are deeply tribal in their party political affiliations, might it not be possible, given the deep fissures that now run through the Conservative Party, to deliver a few well-aimed strategic blows which could cause it to fracture? A certain percentage of the Conservative vote should therefore be considered as potentially up for grabs, owing to widespread disillusion with the ‘Cameroons’.

Likewise, many traditional Labour supporters find themselves without a political home, having seen their party vigorously promote economic policies that have facilitated globalisation and hollowed out those sectors of the economy that have traditionally provided a living for members of the working class as well as courting ethnic minority bloc votes. Many of them are patriotic, and have had to bear the brunt of some of the less savoury aspects of communal behaviour displayed by certain immigrant populations, hence the popularity of the EDL. As with disillusioned Tories, there are votes that can be picked up from disaffected indigenous Labour voters, as well as from the significant percentage of adults who abstain from voting because they believe, with some justification, that “voting will change nothing because the parties are all the same.”

In conclusion, a new credible nationalist party should be able to make ready headway in EU elections given that perhaps 30% of the vote could potentially be available. This figure could be still higher, given the growing anti-globalist sentiment arising from increasing lack of economic security amongst not only working, but also middle class voters. Depending upon the number of seats in a given EU region, it could be possible, as has been demonstrated in the past, to win electoral representation with 10-15% of the vote. At the local level too, often owing to low turnout, it should be plausible to win seats in elections, as demonstrated by the BNP and English Democrats.

Implications for Strategy
One of the clear messages to arise both from electoral experience and from other indicators of the public mood, such as opinion polls, is that there is no longer a single national political stage in the UK, but four, and that the separate dynamics at play within each are becoming ever more pronounced.

This naturally poses the question: to whom should a nationalist party address itself? On the British mainland, there are three, arguably four nations currently sharing one state: the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the Cornish. If taking into consideration the United Kingdom as a whole, an entirely separate political situation pertains in Northern Ireland, and although the proposal forwarded here is based upon unionist principles and assumes that it would be preferable for the UK to remain as a single state, each nation must possess its right to self-determination and thus the right to secede should a majority of its people choose to do so.

In terms of practical politics therefore, although a new party should seek to be inclusive of the separate nations within the existing state, its efforts should be directed primarily towards England and the English, for it is in England and amongst the English that the demand for national expression is least catered for in electoral and constitutional terms. The devolutionary muddle created by the last Labour Government has bolstered the rise of nationalist sentiment in Scotland, and has allowed Wales to enjoy a certain degree of autonomy in policy making, with both being subsidised by England. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all possess nationalist parties of various types that can count upon considerable support from their electorates, so the likelihood of a new nationalist party exerting much appeal within these parts of the UK is slim. Moreover, polls seem to indicate that many people are re-evaluating their identities in light not only of constitutional, but also demographic changes; thus, a YouGov survey conducted in October 2011 yielded the following results: only 20% of respondents in the UK described themselves in the first instance as British, and in England, 63% of the sample thought of themselves first and foremost as English. This latter figure represented a 41% increase since 2008.

Electoral Tactics
Thus far the following has been ascertained: the pool of potential support for such a party is highest in England and can most readily be tapped in EU elections, and in appropriate circumstances, in local contests too. The likelihood of making a Westminster breakthrough however, is extremely slim, at least until a party has established widespread public recognition and has conclusively demonstrated that it is not the belligerent bogey that its foes will claim it to be.

Initial efforts during the party’s early period of growth should thus be devoted to judiciously identifying suitable target seats in the May 2013 local elections and concentrating all efforts on these few. This should prove to be both affordable and practicable. Local knowledge should be utilised to create carefully crafted campaign literature that addresses key concerns amongst constituents that directly mesh with party policies. Generic leaflets in such a context are useless. All activists involved in canvassing should be fully briefed in advance, so that they are aware of the key issues to be highlighted on the doorstep, and adopt an appropriate tone and register when dealing with householders of different backgrounds with often different primary concerns. Such campaigning will also be enhanced by knowledge of rival candidates’ positions and specific pledges that can be picked apart in advance. One approach suggested by regular blog reader Cygnus, which although particularly appropriate to Westminster elections could also be employed in a local context, involves directly challenging voters over their choice of party. In this approach, the campaign team would identify say five policies apiece core to the Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties, and unfavourably juxtapose these with five policies offered by the party candidate.

The local elections of May 2013 will serve as a trial run for the elections to the European Parliament in June 2014, and should hopefully yield at least a few victories that will afford the party publicity. The scale of the effort mounted in 2014 will by definition depend upon the extent to which the party has grown by that point and the resources that are available to it. However, its priority target regions should be: Yorkshire and the Humber; North West England; North East England; East Midlands and West Midlands. By the time of the May 2015 General Election, a new party should aim to be in a position whereby it can field a sufficient number of candidates to secure a party political broadcast. However, in order to maximise impact, party finances and activists should be used in a targeted fashion, with complex campaign plans devised for those seats most likely to yield a return. Such parliamentary constituencies should receive 80% of the party’s efforts, whilst allowing candidates to stand elsewhere with minimal backing. A symbolic Westminster breakthrough in 2015 is required, and given the manifest bankruptcy of globalism and its attendant system of economics, a new credible nationalist party pursuing a campaign focused upon economic policy stands a decent chance of achieving this.

Language, tone and focus: shifting the discursive terrain
One key aspect of strategy that nationalists have up to this point neglected is the most powerful political weapon of all: language and the honing of a credible appealing message. There are many ways of presenting the nationalist message, and how this is communicated requires serious thought to ensure that a new party is also viewed as credible by an educated middle-class audience. The general tone of rhetoric employed hitherto in nationalist circles might well go down well in the convivial atmosphere of a pub, but it sounds out of place in the general public arena. This is not to imply that a new party should abandon any one class in favour of another, for as a nationalist party it should by definition transcend class divisions and seek to represent the interests of all sections of society. Nonetheless, its message needs to be communicated in a way that resonates with a middle-class audience and readership, as well as with those whom our political elite have readily confined to the margins of society and who have to date been subject to the worst effects of mass immigration, multiculturalism and imported misogynist cultural attitudes and practices.

A new party will need to concentrate on a few core positive messages which will enable it to broaden its base of support and appeal. These must be communicated using temperate language to emphasise its moderate nationalist agenda. Always refer to the party as a “moderate nationalist party”. The words “moderate” and “nationalist” must appear together as frequently as possible, so that listeners become accustomed to pairing the two, instead of “far-right” which is currently the undesirable descriptor habitually associated with the terms “nationalist” and “nationalism”. Who could possibly object to a moderate party with a moderate agenda?

The term “anti-globalist” must be used as frequently as possible in relation to the party’s stance. The Conservatives, Labour Party, Liberal Democrats and Greens must constantly be referred to as “globalists”. “Globalists” and “globalism” must be transformed into pejorative terms by highlighting the very real and negative aspects of this ideology and its attendant processes. The party and its position on the other hand, stand for freedom, self-determination and democracy. This must be emphasised repeatedly, and juxtaposed with the innately anti-democratic structures of transnational political and financial governance, as well as with the particularistic interests of transnational corporations which are the stuff of globalism and globalisation. We, as nationalists, are the real environmentalists, not the Greens. Only nationalism and national stewardship can guarantee respect for national natural resources and ecosystems. A respect for our natural environment, on land and at sea, should be an integral part of our nationalism. The landscapes, flora and fauna of our isles and surrounding seas are ours in trust to be tended and passed on to future generations in good condition.

The following key messages should be stressed: it is a party of peace and seeks an end to unnecessary wars and the policy of military interventionism pursued by Labour and Conservative alike; it is a party of neutrality that seeks to maintain good relations with neighbouring countries; it seeks to preserve the best of British heritage and culture, whilst developing a dynamic hi-tech science focused manufacturing economy; it subscribes to upholding individual liberties and the right to free speech; it affirms that the peoples of the United Kingdom, like all peoples, are sovereign and possess the right to self-determination; it aims to enhance the quality of life of our people through focusing upon per capita rather than aggregate economic measures; it recognises that sustainable development requires a truly sustainable demographic policy.

These suggestions illustrate that it is not necessary to lapse into the language of ethnicity or even overtly emphasise immigration to adequately defend our way of life, sovereignty and demographic integrity, for the solution to these issues is implicit in the arguments themselves and the language used to express them. Nonetheless, it is essential not to neglect directly referring to the unsustainable nature of immigration and its negative consequences for our economy, housing, environment and culture. A clear differentiation must also be made between those immigrants who have proven to be upright culturally compatible citizens, and those who have not.

Wherever possible, a credible nationalist party should seek to validate and bolster its position through reference to data and arguments derived from respected non-partisan sources of information, such as Migration Watch, the Optimum Population Trust and Civitas. These conduct much research that can be put to good use in backing up policies on immigration, the environment, economics and education, and possess added weight precisely because of their the absence of any party affiliation.

Party Conduct
One way in which a new party should bear no resemblance whatsoever to the BNP is in its general conduct, for on a number of occasions members of that party behaved in a disgraceful manner towards representatives of the press. Even if an interviewer or camera crew prove to be hostile both in manner and intent, this is no reason for treating them in an uncivil fashion, thus there must never be any of the unjustifiable scenes of violent manhandling of journalists that have been witnessed beforehand. This is not a question merely of presentation, but of principle. Anyone found to be in breach of codes of good conduct should be expelled from the party. It is crucial that representatives of a new party should conduct themselves in a professional and civil manner. A new party should not be blighted by the taint of thuggery.

To grow and prosper, a new party will need to reach out to people from a variety of social backgrounds, bringing together different perspectives and skills that will provide it with broad-based experience and support, and the requisite communicative abilities to ensure that its message and policies reach their target audiences in the manner intended. Hitherto, people from the professions have been deterred from involvement in nationalist politics both because of a perceived social stigma, and the real threat to career and reputation posed by membership of, or support for, the BNP. It will be one of the tasks of a new party to break down this stigma, and to ensure that active support for and membership of the party does not pose a threat either to career or to reputation.

In calling for such a party to be seen to be worthy of support by people from professional backgrounds, this is in no way meant to signify that they should play a dominating role in the new party. The entire system of party politics in this country has come to be controlled by individuals from a middle (frequently an upper middle) class background, with the consequence that the concerns and conditions of working class people have often been ignored. This is one of the great sources of disaffection with contemporary politics, and it needs to be addressed. The Labour Party no longer represents our working class; a new party should seek to actively recruit from amongst it, and to give a platform to its representatives.

Organisation
Unless a situation should arise whereby it looks as if the proposals outlined in the Beyond the Fringe series attract significant support, it would be superfluous to devote much attention to outlining party organisation, structure and procedure. With this in mind, the following brief overarching observations ought to be seen as applicable to any new party that wishes to be taken seriously.

It should be fully democratic and open to all people who support its fundamental goals and values. Whereas it should possess a clearly identifiable and effective leader, it is essential that the party should never become the creature of any one individual or property of a small clique (although of course in its initial stages it may of necessity consist of nothing more than a small core of founding members). The leader will need to be complemented by a talented team, each member possessing a specific function relating to internal party affairs, as well as a distinct policy brief, creating an equivalent of a shadow cabinet. Checks and balances will need to be embedded within its constitution to ensure that all senior members of the party remain accountable to the membership. As such a party grows, authority needs to be delegated accordingly, to allow regional and local branches a certain degree of autonomy over their day-to-day functioning. The party leadership should always be open to suggestions from the general membership, and seek to maximise to best effect the talent and enthusiasms of all of those who comprise its body.

No party will be viable without effectively handling its accounts, and to this end, an especial effort should be devoted to maintaining financial transparency and ensuring that all accounts are submitted in good time.

Conclusion
A latent pool of support for a credible nationalist party exists in Britain, in particular, in England, one sufficiently large as to promise the return of many MEPs and local councillors. In time, this could even lead to a Westminster breakthrough. Through adopting an intelligent, flexible and tailored approach to electioneering, as well as an effective and focused use of language to convey a cohesive and appealing message, a new party has the potential to win support. Not only that, but it could also succeed in affixing deservedly negative labels to those parties that advocate globalism and globalisation, thereby inflicting lasting damage on the existing mainstream parties. The way should lie open to shifting the entire discursive terrain in a nationalist direction.

Winning public trust and confidence are key, and good conduct on the part of party members, as well as a democratic, transparent and fully accountable organisational structure, are essential preconditions for both. This approach, when combined with the policy programme outlined in Part II of this series, ought to make for a potent combination. Having come to the end of this analysis of what is wrong with nationalist politics in our country today, and what needs to be done to turn failure into success, the ball now lies in your court as much as mine. Where do we go from here? Do you support the concept of a new party as outlined in these proposals? If so, would you be interested in helping to make it become a reality?

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

Introduction
When writing, it frequently happens that the author’s intent changes as a piece evolves, and whereas Beyond the Fringe was originally intended to consist of two parts, it has in fact become three. Thus, in this second instalment, the author provides a sketch of the main policy focus that a new party should adopt, without intending to in any way provide a full manifesto. What follows is still very much a work in progress, and the lack of elaboration relating to some key points that will only be alluded to is not meant to signify their lack of importance, for they are key to any nationalist party’s programme, but to indicate that the general public will know them to be a given, so it will not be necessary to belabour them.

Much of what follows will be in tune with the thinking of most nationalists, although some of the general approach to macroeconomic policy may polarise sentiment to a certain extent. The peripheral and damaging concerns held by a minority of nationalists will not be addressed here, not because the author thinks it expedient not to mention them, but because such policies and attitudes are held to be ill founded and not conducive to the public good.

Policies in and of themselves are all very well, but they will be worthless if nobody gets to hear of them. In the third and final instalment of this series therefore, attention will be turned to the potential baseline of support for a nationalist party; strategy; tactics and communicating a consistent message employing language of an appropriate tone and focus.

Policy
In Part I it was noted that UKIP, the English Democrats, the BFP and the National Front had each come to be associated in the public mind with one particular policy concern which limits their prospects for electoral success, but the focus proposed for a new party here will, if it does lead to it being identified with any one policy, serve only to assist it, for it should focus upon economic nationalism. If it is to hold genuine mass appeal, it must offer a credible prospect of prosperity, as well as personal liberty and security. The cracks in the globalist economic system are becoming ever more apparent, so much so, that even some mainstream politicians are now playing with the rhetoric of national interest and “rebalancing the economy”, with a greater focus upon domestic manufacturing. However, their policies and proposals continue to entrench and accelerate globalisation, whereas the task of a new party should be to reverse this process.

Focusing on the economy
Dogmatic hostility to state intervention in economics is as myopic as dogmatic hostility to all forms of private enterprise. A new party should not pursue an economic policy based upon Thatcherite ideology, but upon pragmatism, learning from the successes of the East Asian developmental state, as well as seeking to draw upon approaches offered by distributism.

Whereas the interests of the nation have been subordinated to the state, those of the state must in future be subordinated to the nation. Likewise, a new nationalist party should set out to reorder the economic foundations of the nation, making economic policy subordinate not to the imperatives of transnational financial institutions and corporations, but to the needs of the nation. As such, a National Investment Bank (NIB) should be established that focuses upon raising funds for investment in the following undergirding key aspects of infrastructure: energy, new technologies and transport. To raise capital, encourage savings and ensure that the public has a stake in this undertaking, future tax-exempt investments in the form of stocks and shares ISAs should be restricted to the financing of national projects funded by the NIB.

A credible nationalist party therefore will focus upon economics: the need for energy security; opposition to offshoring; the promotion of domestic manufacturing; legal obligations to privilege nationals in the sphere of employment; crackdowns on corporate tax evasion; the revitalisation of our countryside through the promotion of rural employment in agriculture, conservation and afforestation; the promotion of social enterprises and mutuals with a focus upon increasing the well-being of local communities and the nation as a whole. Given the anti-globalisation sentiment of many members of the younger generation, nationalists should aim to tap into this and show them that nationalism, rather than other ideologies, offers the positive solutions to the economic problems that we face.

One criticism of the BNP’s last General Election Manifesto that any new party needs to take seriously relates to budgetary costings, which its detractors correctly noted did not add up. Any party that hopes to win the trust of voters must not make budgetary commitments based upon spurious assumptions about the amount of money that can be saved through decommitting from foreign aid and leaving the EU. Budgetary proposals must be robust and able to withstand the scrutiny of critics. If they are not, any party forwarding them does not deserve the trust of the public.

Securing national energy supplies
This is vital both in ensuring national prosperity and security, and so can legitimately be considered to be an integral part of both economic and defence policy.

North Sea oil and gas production are in long-term decline, and as a consequence, we are importing a growing percentage of our energy requirements from abroad, not only worsening our balance of payments deficit, but also making ourselves more vulnerable to fluctuations in international prices as well as to potential disruptions in supply. Clearly, new domestic energy resources need to be developed, and existing renewable technologies are not fit to meet the demands placed upon them. Moreover, carbon taxes and the renewable levy on domestic energy users are inflating our national costs of production, thereby undermining our international competitiveness and placing a strain on domestic budgets. Thankfully, real alternative energy sources exist, and others should become available in the coming decades.

As the existing mainstream parties are dragging their heels with respect to energy policy, this offers a contemporary forward-thinking nationalist party the opportunity to champion a genuine alternative course, thereby capturing the public’s imagination and exerting mass appeal. The party should pledge to research the non-fossil fuel energy resources of the future such as nuclear fusion, thorium reactors and hydrogen, whilst in the immediate future examine the feasibility of both fracking for natural gas and the relative merits of revitalising our national coal industry utilising either carbon capture and storage in power generation, or coal gasification. In the 1980s it was estimated that we possessed circa 300 years worth of coal reserves beneath our feet; moreover, diesel can be synthetically produced from coal if need be, thereby providing an alternative to oil imports. The aim of energy policy should be to provide for maximum self-sufficiency, and to utilise available reserves of coal, gas and oil for national use rather than sale on the international market which would lead to their rapid depletion.

Revitalising our domestic energy sector would generate tens of thousands of new jobs bringing wealth back to areas of our country that have been blighted since the pit closures, creating spin-off employment in the heavy-machinery supply chain and in other businesses required to support the sector. Prosperity could thereby be restored to areas of long-term unemployment and deprivation, creating a virtuous circle of development. It would also help us to choke off the flow of capital to Middle Eastern states such as Saudi Arabia that use their money to spread Salafist Islam in our country and others. Without oil, these theocratic rentier states would count for next to nothing politically, and their malign global influence would collapse into insignificance.

In the interim, one of the factors feeding through into inflation and increasing general costs for business and consumers is the high price of petrol and diesel, the bulk of which is accounted for by tax. Planned increases in duty should be scrapped and the existing level reconsidered. High fuel prices have a particularly negative impact upon the lives of low-paid rural workers, who have no option but to drive owing to the absence of public transport.

Embracing cutting edge technologies
A key element of economic policy should be the creation of conditions in which new technologies and industries can establish themselves and thrive. The potential of biotech needs to be harnessed to improve health, develop new fuels, deal with pollution and increase productivity. Stem cell therapies hold massive promise. The development and application of new advanced materials, such as graphene, must help drive a new industrial revolution. Science and technology must be at the core of policy thinking. If they are not, then other nations such as China will take the lead.

Some take a mistrustful view of science, arising from the particularistic interests of lobbies, whether they are corporations, governments or transnational political actors. However, whilst there can be no doubt that certain corporations have sought to dangerously abuse GM technologies by attempting to patent seeds and livestock, this is a separate issue entirely from the science itself. It should be illegal for companies to take out such patents, but research into the prospective benefits of aspects of GM should be encouraged, whilst ensuring that strict safeguards are drawn up in relation to any subsequent introduction of resultant products into the food chain.

Environmental Policy
There is a genuine environmental crisis and a new party should highlight this. It however, is not climate change, for if anthropogenic climate change is indeed a reality, it is simply a by-product of global overpopulation. This must be constantly reiterated along with the corresponding fact that the UK has no further carrying capacity. Thus to take further immigrants is both irresponsible and, in the long term, dangerous.

Although a new party should certainly highlight where the climate change issue is being abused by political parties and the Government to further objectives which are against our national interest, it should not therefore draw the erroneous conclusion that the science is basically bogus. After all, why should the ‘sceptics’ be adjudged to be any less partisan or more objective than those who possess a mainstream position, given that the former are often funded by powerful oil companies that have a vested interest in opposing the current orthodoxy? Simply because climate change is being used by our mainstream parties to justify ramping up foreign aid, domestic deindustrialisation and introducing ‘green’ taxes does not imply that the science is necessarily being invented to justify policy. All it means is that our government, as well as the governments of many other countries, sees this as a useful pretext for implementing other agendas that they already possess, such as creating transnational institutions of political and economic governance. The party should therefore not adopt a strong position either way on the scientific basis of climate change, but should constantly and unfailingly highlight the political abuse of the climate change rationale for implementing undesirable policies that work directly against the national interest.

As our domestic oil reserves are declining and international supplies are growing less secure and more expensive, developing new technologies not dependent upon oil are good in and of themselves, for they reduce national vulnerability to external geopolitical factors and will be cleaner. If other countries are convinced of the necessity of introducing such technologies, why should we not profit from this by selling new technological expertise and products? Furthermore, moving away from an oil dependent economy will help to undermine the source of vast wealth underpinning Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia which ultimately funds global jihad and Islamic proselytisation, including in the UK.

Demographic Policy and Immigration
A popular nationalism will address and solve the problems of an overburdened transport infrastructure, a shortage of housing and pressure upon our countryside by implementing policies that will at first stabilise and then encourage a reduction in our population. This can be achieved through a combination of strict immigration controls and facilitating the departure of those who lack ethnic roots in the UK who actively identify against the native population. Additional resources should be devoted to combating illegal means of entry to the country such as sham marriages, organised people trafficking and general lone entry by foreign nationals. Punitive sanctions should be put in place for those who organise both sham marriages and people trafficking, with the costs incurred in the expatriation and resettlement of illegal immigrants being funded by the liquidation of the assets of those found guilty of these crimes. If the individuals involved in the organisation of such activity also happen to lack ancestral roots in the United Kingdom, they and their families should be expatriated to their ancestral familial homeland with no right of appeal.

These sanctions should serve as an exemplary deterrent to all who would consider engaging in crimes of this type, as well as provide a means of humanely resettling those individuals who have found themselves victims of the international sex trade. Other illegal immigrants who have often paid a great deal of money to traffickers frequently find themselves in a miserable position once in the UK, often living in squalid sheds erected in back gardens and leading a twilight existence because their papers have been purposefully destroyed. They should be humanely expatriated using funds acquired from the liquidation of the assets of their landlords or gangmasters. Their experience and the headlines generated by their removal would send the desired message to others considering the same route: you will be sent back, papers or no papers.

Criminals of foreign extraction should be routinely deported to their countries of origin, for their crimes are only compounded by the taxpayer having to fund their incarceration here.

Another undesirable and dubious phenomenon that is currently legal but underpins the growth of parallel societies separate to the host nation, is chain migration, whereby relatives of those who have acquired citizenship are then able to settle in the United Kingdom and in turn gain citizenship themselves. Often this is said to be in accordance with their "human right" to a family life. Any such right to "family reunion" should apply only in the ancestral ethnic homeland of the parties in question.

Deportation should be the fate of those individuals (together with their families) who advocate and agitate for the undermining of our freedoms and system of law, by either calling for the recognition and operation of parallel legal structures and exemptions, or for the imposition of their preferred legal system upon the host society. Clearly, the views of such people are at variance with the country in which they currently reside, and thus it would be preferable for all if they were to be returned to their ancestral familial homelands, where legal and social codes are in accordance with their cultural preference. Similarly, those few indigenous members of the population who have gone over to this way of thinking should also be encouraged to leave.

Legitimate new arrivals ought to contribute to society before being able to claim full citizenship rights, such as the vote or the right to state benefits (e.g. housing benefit, unemployment benefit and free medical care). A qualifying period could thus be introduced, say three years for someone from within the EU or from Australia, New Zealand and Canada, and five years for those from elsewhere. Whereas in an ideal world of infinite resources it would be good to provide such entitlement for all, in practical terms, particularly during our current era of economic contraction and mass indebtedness, native citizens themselves are not being provided with the services that they deserve. Given that the number of prospective immigrants is many times the size of the existing population of the United Kingdom, measures must be put in place to ensure that this human tide is turned.

Provision for the Elderly
Many of our old people have been ill rewarded for their years of labour, and have nothing more than the state pension as a means of subsistence. Although additional benefits can be claimed, it is demeaning that their incomes should be topped up in this fashion. A new party should therefore pledge to increase the basic state pension to a level that renders claiming for top-up benefits obsolete, the precise figure to be ascertained following a review of overall budgetary expenditure and taxation.

In recent years, many people of working age and those yet to enter the workplace have been notified that they will have to work longer than the current generation before qualifying for a state pension owing to an increase in general longevity. However, at the same time that people are being compelled to work for longer, millions of young people lack employment. A situation is therefore being created in which millions wish to retire, but cannot, whilst millions who wish to work, cannot. An obvious solution would be to return the standard retirement age to a uniform 65, which would please both the old and the young, for although longevity has increased, the number of healthy years spent in retirement has remained roughly the same. People should therefore be given the opportunity to retire at 65, but their right to continue working, should they wish to do so, ought to be protected. The money saved on benefits currently paid to the young unemployed would pay for returning the pensionable age to 65.

Freedom of Speech and Expression
One of the most notable characteristics of life in the contemporary United Kingdom is the degree to which traditional freedoms relating to thought, speech and expression have been systematically eroded under successive governments irrespective of their party political complexion. Thus we have seen laws introduced against "hate crimes" defined in such a manner as to make them almost all-encompassing, particularly with the catch-all term of "racism", which has come to be defined as existing if the victim of a particular crime perceives the intent of the perpetrator as emanating from, or being intensified by, a "racist" motive. In practice, together with its twin nebulous concept of "institutional racism", allegations of "racism" can be deployed by non-indigenes to stigmatise and destroy the reputation of any indigenous citizen. Such laws need to be replaced with legislation that guarantees the physical security of the person, and penalises only concrete threats or the real intent to instigate violence against an individual or group.

The Human Rights Act should be repealed, owing to the widespread abuses that have taken place in its name. It should be replaced with legislation that contains adequate provision for guaranteeing the rights and physical safety of citizens.

Secularism
All legislation relating to "religious hatred" and the promotion of "diversity" needs to be repealed. Individuals should be protected by the law, but religious systems of belief and other ideologies should be open to full public criticism and ridicule; it should not be a crime for someone to be offended. A new party should be secular, which is to say, committed to keeping religion and politics separate, but advocate the public celebration of our traditional national festivals that have deep roots in Christianity, paganism and the natural passage of the seasons. People of any religion and none can share in these; otherwise, people’s religious beliefs and affiliations, or lack of them, are a matter for personal conscience.

Employment Law
Selection in the workplace should be based exclusively upon the relative merits of candidates providing that they are citizens of this country. Skin colour should not come into it, for after all, if someone capable of a non-indigenous background is singled out for preferential treatment does this not feel demeaning? Does not the existing legislation actually patronise such people, and create potential mistrust and ill feeling between them and indigenous colleagues where none need exist if it were not for such legislation? Would it not be better for all concerned if the nagging thought that “they only got that job because of their ethnicity” were to be removed from the equation?

Constitutional Matters
The United Kingdom in its current form may not exist by 2015, depending upon the outcome of any referendum on Scotland’s independence. However, irrespective of the result, the West Lothian Question does need to be addressed. At a minimum, Scottish, Welsh and Irish MPs should not be able to vote on matters at Westminster – such as education – that concern only England.

Of more pressing concern than the above however, is the UK’s membership of the European Union. In order to regain sovereignty and effective border controls, a departure from the EU is essential.

A formal written constitution would include recognition of the existence of the indigenous peoples of the United Kingdom and their concomitant rights to national self-determination and primacy within their own homelands.

Foreign Policy
A non-interventionist neutral foreign policy should be advocated which would entail leaving NATO as it no longer meets our national security requirements. Positive and close relations should be maintained with European countries, as well as with our daughter societies – Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Defence Policy
This should be determined strictly by the need to protect the homeland, overseas British territories and shipping. All armed forces should be withdrawn from Afghanistan, and a policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states should be adopted. Military interventionism as an instrument of foreign policy as employed under recent Labour and Conservative administrations should be abandoned. Islamism should be tackled by the intelligence services and the police. A review of defence requirements should lead to the creation of a military better adapted to the future direction of foreign and domestic policy outlined above.

Conclusion
The suggested policy focus could be summed up in three words: prosperity, liberty and security. This should provide the basis for a popular and resonant nationalist programme that would allow a newly constituted party to exert considerable public appeal. No such programme could be implemented without the UK’s exit from the EU, although it would be crucial for a new party to reiterate that it is anti-EU but not anti-European, for the two are quite distinct.

The globalist parties – Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat (as well as the Greens) – have all advocated and promoted the hollowing out of our democracy and sovereignty by using the state to further the interests of transnational corporations and finance, none of which can be held to account by our people. It will be essential to introduce legislation that removes the possibility of foreign takeovers of viable businesses, and the large-scale foreign direct investment that does take place must be subject to in-depth scrutiny. Some, such as by Nissan and Honda, is productive for the country, unlike the recently announced Arab financing of housing and infrastructure in Liverpool, which is parasitic. The latter needs to be curtailed.

In sum, focusing upon a distinctive nationalist economic agenda would present a new party with the most effective means of making headway. Whilst still retaining policies committed to ending mass immigration and multiculturalism, solutions to our economic problems are key. Much has been left out of this policy discussion, including pivotal areas such as health, education and law and order, but these will be revisited at a later date. The primary intent of this piece has been to forward the case for focusing upon the economy as a viable strategy for gaining public support, rather than providing a fully-fledged overview of policy. It is now up to readers to consider the points raised here, and to decide whether these suggestions possess merit.

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.