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.

French Lessons for British Nationalists

If only we had a nationalist politician as articulate as France’s Front National Leader Marine Le Pen! Why don’t we? Why don’t we have an organised nationalist political party as popular as the Front National? Le Pen is currently predicted to beat Sarkozy in the first round of the French presidential elections next year, and as can be seen in her confident handling of an interview with Russia Today in the video at the end of this article, the messages and policies that she proposes would apply equally well to the UK.

Why indeed, are we lagging behind virtually all other countries in Europe in spawning a popular nationalist party? Witness the recent electoral successes of the True Finns, the Sweden Democrats and the PVV. All have made groundbreaking advances in their respective countries, showing that they possess the potential of becoming the leading political forces in their nations.

Here in the UK, much of the problem lies with the widespread illusion that the Conservative Party is a nationalist party. It is not. It is instead a globalist multiculturalist party, concerned primarily with protecting the narrow material interests of the most privileged stratum within our fractured society. There is nothing else that this party wishes to conserve. The illusion of the Conservative Party as a nationalist party is fed by its ideological globalist multiculturalist bedfellows in the Labour and Liberal Democratic parties, and most importantly of all, by the Tory press such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express and the Telegraph.

The Conservative Party under Thatcher and Major waged a class war that destroyed the material security of vast sections of the British working class, decimating entire industries and communities in the process: coalmining, shipbuilding, steel and manufacturing in general. Once they had laid waste to the economic underpinnings of our nation and transformed us into a speculative debt-fuelled property-obsessed service economy, along came Labour and Brown to propel us further in this direction. Moreover, Blair and Brown opened two further fronts - ideological and demographic - in the war against our people, denying in fact that we even exist as a people, as a nation. Enter the ‘diversity’ dogma, millions of immigrants and special privileges for Islam in the form of legislation protecting religious minorities.

Labour’s kulturkampf continues under the Cameroons, and yet people are still gulled by Cameron’s empty rhetoric about ditching multiculturalism, controlling immigration and giving the UK a greater say over our relationship with the EU, whilst in fact the Condem Coalition continues to promote the first two, and Cameron reneged over his promise to allow the electorate a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty. Most parliamentary Conservatives today are either enthusiastic advocates of EU membership, or do nothing to promote our withdrawal.

The other reason for the failure of a nationalist party to take off in the UK is the fact that we have not hitherto possessed a credible vehicle for the nationalistically-inclined voter. For all the talk of smears directed against the BNP, it is an unfortunate truth that the party under Nick Griffin has been run into the ground by its leader with a startling dictatorial incompetence. According to Eddie Butler, who challenged Griffin for leadership of the BNP last year, the party’s membership has slumped from a high of 15,000 in May 2010 to around 8,500 by the end of last month. Regular purges and the promotion of sycophantic incompetents, unnecessary court cases, dubious accounting practices, chronic indebtedness, general amateurishness expressing itself in outlandish policy declarations including a manifesto commitment to the general ownership of automatic weaponry and the opening of a penal colony on South Georgia, as well as the intemperate behaviour of some of its members, have allowed the party to squander the groundswell of support that was building in its favour until 2009.

The efforts and hopes of dedicated nationalists who risked much professionally by joining the party have been very poorly rewarded. With a set-up such as this, the BNP hardly needed the combined opposition of the mass media, Searchlight, Hope Not Hate and UAF to end up in its current debacle. Granted, the negative impact of the propaganda constantly pumped out by these opposition groups was certainly a significant hindrance, but even if none of this had existed, the internal flaws that I have mentioned would still have crippled the prospects of the party and deprived it of credibility in the eyes of the electorate.

Many of the more talented senior members of the party left, some to set up the British Freedom Party, which unfortunately itself suffered an internal spat which left it in brief legal limbo until the splinter faction finally broke away to form the Freedom Democrats. From what I have seen, the British Freedom Party has struck the right note (although I have reservations about its commitment to the death penalty) through its realistic formulation of a policy of cultural nationalism that places it very much in line with the PVV in the Netherlands and Die Freiheit in Germany. If one takes its policy declarations to be its yardstick, the British Freedom Party deserves to succeed. On the other hand, if one considers the behaviour of some of its leading founding members, this assertion is cast into doubt. From what I have seen of the policy proposals put forward by the Freedom Democrats, they would be best off joining the disaffected Atlanticist Tories who comprise UKIP.

A new challenge is being made to Nick Griffin’s leadership of the BNP by Richard Edmonds backed by Eddie Butler. They hope to salvage the party, but Butler himself has encouraged many members to leave and join the English Democrats. Indeed, a number of former BNP members, such as Chris Beverley in Morley, will be standing for the English Democrats in the local elections this week. Even if the Edmonds challenge is successful, the BNP looks pretty much dead in the water, with a dreadful public image, not to mention massive debts and serious questions hanging over its accounting procedures. Shockingly, patriotically minded printers who produced the party’s election literature last year have yet to be paid.

The political landscape in the UK is of course highly fragmented owing to the devolutionary settlement imposed by the Labour Party, thus there are different political dynamics at play in the four constituent parts of the country, so in reality any British nationalist party will draw almost all of its support from within England, from the English. With the BNP (certainly for now) out of the frame, we are thus confronted with a shoal of contenders seeking to gobble up the nationalist (here loosely defined to encompass its ethnic, cultural, civic and racial variants) vote: British Freedom Party; English Democrats; Freedom Democrats; National Front; UKIP. All of these have benefited from the turmoil within the BNP, but their prospects are limited.

The Freedom Democrats are in my opinion stillborn and will be gone within a couple of months. Their handful of members will probably join what appears to be their natural home: UKIP. Alternatively, some of them may wish to throw in their lot with the English Democrats. The National Front will gain a few disaffected members from the BNP and will field a few more candidates than it has in recent years, but to no avail, as its ‘brand’ is more tarnished than that of the BNP. The interesting part of the nationalist dynamic lies with the relative fortunes of the British Freedom Party and the English Democrats. The former, as a completely new party, stands at a disadvantage in that it will possess almost zero public recognition, whereas the English Democrats enjoy the advantage of having been established for longer, as well as possessing regional party structures and a certain amount of low-level public visibility. The election of Peter Davies as English Democrat Mayor of Doncaster has certainly raised the party’s profile in Yorkshire. The English Democrats are rather like UKIP for the English, but a centrist civic nationalist rather than an Atlanticist Tory party, and thus possess the potential to appeal to a wider social constituency.

However, it is the British Freedom Party that for me possesses the most fully developed policy platform, as well as a more cohesive ideology than either the English Democrats or UKIP. That said, this fact is rather marred by the maladroit handling of 'dissent' within the party, which basically boiled down to a clash of personalities that precipitated the creation of the Freedom Democrats. Civility costs nothing, and yet two leading members of the BFP lacked the grace to display this towards Gary Marshall, Michael Simpkins and a number of their colleagues who were summarily expelled, thus also betraying what appears to be a negative dictatorial manner of acting à la Nick Griffin carried across from their former party - the BNP. This is a great shame, as I, and I am sure many others, had hoped that the BFP would take from the BNP that which was good by way of policy, and add a genuine democratic and participative element to the party. Clearly, this has not transpired. If disagreements had been handled with tact, this unnecessary split could have been avoided.

Still, I hope that where possible these small parties choose to coordinate their efforts and avoid standing against each other (although I do not think that UKIP will oblige) so as to maximise their electoral impact and thereby allow them to utilise their scarce resources to the best affect. Which do I support? Pragmatically speaking, that very much depends upon the choice presented to me at the ballot box, which may well be no choice at all. Prior to the split, my support would have been lent to the BFP with reasonable confidence, but now, I am veering in the direction of the English Democrats. Many nationalists may decry such a stance, claiming that the English Democrats are cod nationalists as they are not ethno-nationalists, but they possess many good policies which would help move the general frame of public political debate away from the anti-nationalist paradigm. Politics is the art of the possible, thus if the opportunity should afford itself this Thursday morning, I shall be voting for the English Democrats. Failing that, I shall cast my vote for any of the other broadly-defined nationalist parties listed above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dudley North: BNP Target Seat Number Eight

Although Dudley North hasn't been given such good odds as Dagenham and Rainham by Paddypower.com (40/1 as opposed to 33/1), I think that the BNP will probably have a stronger showing in the former. One of the major reasons underpinning this judgement is the recent controversy in Dudley over the proposed Mega Mosque, which although rejected by the local council, was given the go-ahead by central government. However, the strong opposition of the non-Muslim local population backed by two demonstrations by the EDL, one of which took place last weekend, appears to have caused the plans for the mosque to be dropped. However, there have been a number of reports originating with the EDL that many local Muslims were tooled-up with weapons over the weekend and threatened to riot unless the police brought the protest to a swift end. This the latter did, using armed officers.

Understandably therefore, local tensions are running high. For years now, and especially since last year, ordinary Britons, particularly in England, have grown increasingly concerned with the manner in which Muslims have been courted by our mainstream politicians and given preferential treatment by the police and much of the mainstream media. This has given birth to the EDL as a popular counter-jihad street movement and has also energised the BNP vote in many constituencies over the past decade. Although UKIP purport to oppose Islamisation, the BNP is the only political party in the UK to make counter-Islamisation one of its main planks of policy, and it's not shy about mentioning this. Wherever significant concentrations of Muslims live amongst or next to the native population, the BNP does well owing to its willingness to articulate the many problems experienced by the local indigenous population which are directly attributable to Islamisation.

Dudley North was BNP Deputy Chairman Simon Darby's former constituency target in the past two parliamentary elections. In fact, Darby has an even longer association with the seat, having stood as the National Democrats candidate in 1997. Once he moved to the BNP however, he polled more healthily, upping his share from 1% in 1997 to 4.7% in 2001 and 9.7% in 2005. This time, Ken Griffiths is representing the BNP, but he also has competition from two other candidates who can be classed as nationalist: Malcolm Davies of UKIP and Kevin Inman of the National Front. Malcolm Davies stood in Dudley North in 2005 and polled 4.7%, so is likely to score a similar share this time. However, he may well receive EDL endorsement as he led initial opposition to the construction of the Mega Mosque. Up until 2007 he was a Dudley councillor who had originally been elected as a Liberal Democrat. Evidently, he disapproved of the latter's Euro-servile stance and jumped ship for UKIP.

The National Front haven't stood in the seat since 1997 when they took 1.2% of the poll, and I should imagine that they'll take a similar share this time. The majority of voters who support nationalism realise that the BNP is the most credible of the nationalist parties and won't waste their votes on Inman. Interestingly, Kevin Inman was until recently a member of the BNP. Only last May he featured in a BNP website story on campaigning ahead of the EU elections, where he was described as 'Black Country Deputy Organiser'. Presumably, Inman's decision to leave the party for the National Front was in some way connected with the BNP's move towards the mainstream and its decision to admit ethnically non-indigenous members. In fact, the National Front have decided to stand against the BNP in a number of seats this year, but they will be doomed to being beaten by the BNP by a healthy margin wherever they stand.

Dudley North has been a solid Labour seat for many years, although Labour's share of the vote has eroded slightly since 2001 and must be expected to decrease again tomorrow. In 1997 they polled 51.2%; in 2001 52.1%, and in 2005 44.2%. This time, the full slate of candidates is as follows: Ian Austin (Labour); Mike Beckett (Liberal Democrat); Graeme Brown (Conservative); Malcolm Davies (UKIP); Ken Griffiths (BNP) and Kevin Inman (National Front). The results for 2005 were:

• Labour                      18,306    44.2% (−7.9)
• Conservative             12,874    31.1% (−3.4)
• Liberal Democrat       4,257     10.3% (+1.6)
• BNP                          4,022      9.7%   (+5.0)
• UKIP                        1,949      4.7%   (N/A)

The BNP should be aiming for a minimum of third place with at least 15% of the vote. This target is readily in reach. I urge anyone living in Dudley North who wishes to send out a strong signal that you are dissatisfied with the mainstream parties' reaction to Islamic intimidation of the local population to vote BNP tomorrow. The more votes that Ken Griffiths receives, the stronger will be your message to the political class who are content not only to ignore your woes, but to exacerbate them by pandering to the Islamist bullies. Vote for a brighter future. Vote for peace. Vote BNP.