Tommy Robinson to appear on Jeremy Kyle?

An anti-British campaign blog has today claimed that Tommy Robinson/Stephen Lennon will shortly be appearing on the Jeremy Kyle show together with the Chairman of the British Freedom Party Paul Weston. Is this true? It may be a popular show (I must confess to never having watched it), but is this really the right forum for people who wish to elicit support from the general public? Does this not run the risk of seriously backfiring, with these two participants, given the type of people normally said to feature in the programme, coming to be perceived as just another addition to Kyle's dysfunctional circus sideshow?

Rhetorical Question: Is Jeremy Kyle patronising or smug?

Russia Today has hitherto been a rather more reliable news source with respect to its treatment of Islamism and Islamisation in Europe, but in the video below it would seem that it has been infected by the Breivik meme being vigorously peddled by none other than the anti-British 'Hope not Hate' campaign. As someone elsewhere has commented, blaming the EDL for Breivik as 'Hope not Hate' and this report do is akin to blaming The Beatles for Charles Manson (although of course it has to be said that The Beatles produced rather better music than the EDL).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insert the word ‘cultural’ before ‘assimilation’.

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed.

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

Agreed, although this could benefit from being rephrased.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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


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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

The Failure of the BNP

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

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

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

A New Party

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

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

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

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

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

The Weaknesses of existing Parties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

British Nationalism on the Web: Who's up and Who's down

As mainstream media outlets are intrinsically inimical towards nationalism it is not surprising that the Internet has become the medium through which nationalists have in recent years sought to propagate their message and to establish channels of communication with others of a similar outlook. To members of the public at large who do not take it upon themselves to investigate this area of politics beyond reading what is printed in the press or broadcast on the airwaves, ‘nationalism’ in the contemporary United Kingdom is associated with two parties only: the BNP and UKIP, although the latter would not primarily define itself as a nationalist party. At the level of local media, the English Democrats have received minimal and fleeting coverage, but the other micro-parties that would seek to assume the mantle of nationalism are practically invisible. The British Freedom Party evinced momentary media interest when Tommy Robinson announced the EDL’s tie-up with the former, but since then, it has slipped from public purview back into the nationalist mists.

Nick Griffin’s catastrophic mismanagement of the BNP has reduced the party from a position in which it was on the verge of achieving an electoral breakthrough, to one in which it is caught in a terminal tailspin. This is well-known both in nationalist and anti-nationalist circles, but not to the general public, which is why opinion polls keep citing a residual 2% of respondents as intending to vote BNP at the next election. This of course does not in reality represent support for Griffin’s corrupt machine, but for the idea of a democratic British ethno-nationalist party. Nonetheless, it is to the world of British and English nationalism that I turn my attention in this piece, and to the relative visibility and strengths of the different contenders for the nationalist crown. The BNP is dead, long live . . . which party exactly?

Before looking at the statistics associated with the smaller contenders for the nationalist crown (taken from Alexa Rankings on 9th January 2012), it is worth bearing in mind that despite its many troubles the BNP website commands a very respectable amount of traffic allowing it to clock in as the 2023rd most popular in the UK. Likewise, it has a considerable Facebook following, with some 78,437 followers. Although far more successful electorally and possessing much greater media coverage and financial muscle than the BNP, UKIP’s presence on the internet is by contrast rather modest, with its party site clocking in as the 17,345th most popular in the UK and its Facebook page commanding a paltry 2,111 followers. Given the high average age of UKIP supporters though, this shouldn’t perhaps be such a great surprise.

Although not a political party, the EDL has been rightly trumpeted as the most successful nationalistically-inclined grassroots movement to have emerged in recent decades. It therefore seems fitting to include statistics relating to its web presence given this popularity and its wider influence on the nationalist scene. Its website attracts a significant amount of traffic, more than UKIP’s in fact, clocking in at number 12,064 in the UK and 234,946 globally, whilst its Facebook page has 27,111 followers. However, when considering the EDL’s presence on Facebook, it should be borne in mind that previous pages have been hacked and rendered defunct on more than one occasion, so it is possible that had this not happened the total would now be considerably higher. Clearly though, as with all nationalist sites, it will also be attracting visits from its opponents as well as from its supporters. Its high hit rate could thus also be an indication of the EDL’s unpopularity. There are also a number of Facebook pages associated with the EDL’s divisional structure which are in themselves popular, such as Leicester that boasted 3,123 followers when I last checked the statistics.

Another significant factor to consider when looking at the popularity of the EDL is Tommy Robinson’s recent endorsement of the British Freedom Party. Although both he and the BFP leadership anticipated that this would lead to a sizeable segment of the EDL’s membership lending its support to the party, debate on the EDL Forum indicates that opinion on this alliance is far from united, with a majority of those expressing their views on this subject backing UKIP rather than the BFP. It would take something significant on the part of the BFP to change this preference. Nonetheless, since the party’s relaunch last November its web traffic has received a noteworthy fillip, edging slightly ahead of the EDL clocking in at 9,666th in the UK and 223,423rd globally.

In contrast, traffic to the BNP Ideas site – attracting contributions and support from the thoughtful and democratic members (or recent ex-members) of the party outside of the Griffin clique – is higher in the UK at 7,645 but lower globally coming in at 239,166th position. Nonetheless, it strikes me as preferable for a British nationalist site to seek to attract most of its traffic from within the UK rather than from without. Quite what will happen to BNP Ideas now that Andrew Brons has announced the formation of the Centre for Democratic Nationalism and the abandonment of the idea of setting up another ethnonationalist party remains to be seen. According to Brons “The primary aimof the Centre for Democratic Nationalism will be to facilitate the emergence of a united British Nationalist Movement.” The only party to have affiliated to it thus far is The Democratic Nationalists, and it is clear that this recent announcement has driven traffic to the party’s rather basic website taking it to 74,025th position in the UK. 

Another party to have emerged from a BNP breakaway is the Freedom Democrats formed from expelled members of the BFP. Despite claims by the Freedom Democrats to be the true British equivalent of the European freedom parties and to enjoy positive relations with its continental counterparts, the figures do not seem to lend this assertion credibility. The Freedom Democrats website doesn’t possess a UK Alexa traffic ranking, but clocks in at 24,336,810th globally, and its Facebook page features 16 ‘friends’. Evidently, the party is a non-starter and has less political clout than my blog, which isn’t saying much. Its members, if they wish to be involved in politics, would be advised to stand as independents or to join another party. Despite what some disaffected BNP members may mutter, the National Front is effectively dead, commanding no UK traffic ranking and a global position of 3,006,831. Its Facebook page boasts 457 friends.

Although having some electoral representation – including the Mayor of Doncaster – the English Democrats possess a modest web presence, despite their recent website revamp which has left it looking far more appealing and professional. At the time of writing, the EDs’ website ranked at 1,540,656th globally, a little behind my blog which enjoyed a ranking of 1,508,640th globally and 85,579th in the UK. The EDs are certainly ahead of Durotrigan on Facebook though, for Durotrigan has no Facebook presence; in fact, they score relatively well with 6,149 ‘friends’, coming in ahead both of UKIP and the BFP.

Lastly, turning to Britain First (I couldn’t find a site for its spinoff National People’s Party) championed by the Green Arrow, I was surprised to see that despite the trumpeting their internet presence appears to be weaker than the BFP, BNP Ideas and the EDL. UKIP manages to outstrip them on Facebook, but not in terms of its British traffic. The figures for the Britain First website are 13,524th in the UK and 352,736th globally; Facebook – 1,170 followers.


Conclusions
What does all of this say about the different nationalist parties, factions and movements operating in Britain today? Evidently, it serves to underscore the seriously fragmented nature of the nationalist scene, and the possibility that any one of a number of what could be termed “post-BNP parties”could emerge to eclipse the BNP. Will it be whatever might emerge from the Brons plan with his Centre for Democratic Nationalism? Will it be Paul Weston’s BFP, or the English Democrats or Britain First/National People’s Party? What implications could Scottish independence have for the whole of the nationalist spectrum?

Evidently, UKIP will for the foreseeable future continue to be the most publicly visible and least pilloried of the parties and movements mentioned above, but it remains an Atlanticist Tory party rather than a nationalist party, and thus whilst a UKIP administration would be less damaging than any put in place by the current big three in British politics, it is not what we need in the long run to turn our country around. We need a single credible and viable party to emerge in the very near future and for nationalists to agree to unite around whichever vehicle it may be. Time is growing short. Websites, blogs and general internet activism will have their role to play, but this is only part of the story if a viable nationalist politics is to be born in our country. Some bloggers/website contributors have already taken their views to the comment threads on major national newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph so as to attempt to sneak nationalist views past the moderators, and in some instances, this appears to be enjoying some success. Will it work? If we don’t try, we won’t know.

A later post will look at the internet presence of the major campaigning foes of nationalist parties and politics, and I am sure that you’ll be pleasantly surprised to learn that in terms of traffic, the nationalists appear to be winning. However, given that the web is the only place where a nationalist position is freely articulated this should not be a surprise, for those of a multiculturalist pro-mass immigration bent have plenty of mainstream media organs, as well as political parties, advocating and pushing their message in every sphere of life. 

Paul Weston Interview

Paul Weston, Chairman of the British Freedom Party, is here interviewed by Canadian television host Michael Coren. A speech made by Paul Weston in Amsterdam on behalf of the International Free Press Society can be viewed here.

Independent covers EDL-British Freedom Party Alliance

Today the Independent ran a story on the recent announcement that the EDL was to back the British Freedom Party. Initially, it ran under the headline of ‘Angry face of far-right protest prepares to storm local elections’, but was later toned down to the rather more sober ‘English Defence League prepares to storm local elections’.

Unsurprisingly, the coverage was not what you would call sympathetic, but at least on this occasion the likes of UAF and Hope Not Hate were not provided a platform from which to spew their language of anti-English hate, employing the mandatory (in their eyes) vitriolic epithets of ‘fascist’, ‘Nazi’ and ‘racist’ with respect to their objects of loathing: the EDL and British Freedom. Instead, the Independent drafted in self-styled ‘expert’ on ‘far-right’ politics, Dr Goodwin from the University of Nottingham, to provide a little context on this development for Independent readers who will not generally be aware of what has occurred in nationalist politics over the past twelve months or so. He foresees that there should be scope for significant growth for British Freedom, as he rightly acknowledges that there exists a mainstream political void in this country when it comes to the question of mass immigration and the desire to tackle it.

Websites inimical to nationalism have not been backward in offering their opinions on the recent tie-up between the EDL and British Freedom, the UAF site claiming that this agreement to co-operate was essentially a classic ‘fascist’ arrangement:

The new alliance – by bringing together the electoral BFPand the EDL thugs – gives the fascists their traditional two-pronged attack.

Strangely, they do not seem to apply this warped logic to their own campaigns and organisation, which mobilise considerable numbers of people to take to the streets and violently confront the EDL and members of nationalist parties. UAF is but the street wing of the SWP and the Labour Party, and has been since its inception. It exists to destroy freedom of speech through intimidation and violence, threatening anyone of whatever political persuasion who dares to disagree with their ‘no-platform’ policy. Neither the EDL nor British Freedom believe in the ‘no-platform’ position, and instead support free speech. Which side therefore, would you adjudge to be more ‘fascist’ in its attitude and behaviour? UAF is organised mass thuggery, yet peculiarly the state does not seem to be concerned about its methods and objectives.

More publicity is on the way for British Freedom, as Paul Weston is to be interviewed by the BBC over the coming week. The party has recently been given a boost to both its membership and visibility by its alliance with the EDL; what is required now is to keep the momentum going and to build an effective and disciplined campaigning party machine capable of winning elections. This is perfectly achievable, and if this process is handled correctly and intelligently, electoral success awaits the British Freedom Party, whereas the lies of UAF will be exposed for the hostile fabrications that they are.

Tommy Robinson to leave EDL for British Freedom

On Saturday 19 November the EDL Way Forward Meeting will take place in Birmingham, at which it will be announced that Tommy Robinson (Stephen Lennon) is to quit the EDL and instead venture into electoral politics. He has selected a political party which whilst championing the EDL’s anti-Islamisation stance, possesses a full policy platform: British Freedom. Coming as it does within a fortnight of Paul Weston assuming the Chairmanship of British Freedom, this move will undoubtedly boost the profile of a party that has hitherto been invisible to all but a tiny minority of people in the UK.

This move illustrates that Robinson/Lennon has come to the realisation that he had personally taken things as far as he could with the EDL, and that existing mainstream political parties have no interest in tackling the issue of Islamisation. His decision was prefigured by reports in the Daily Star re his possible entry into the political arena, and discussions at the London 'Counterjihad Summit' in September. Earlier this year he momentarily thought that David Cameron intended to tackle the policy disaster of multiculturalism following a speech delivered by the Prime Minister in Munich, but as I wrote at the time, Cameron’s rhetoric was crafted to create the impression that he was opposed to multiculturalism and to mask the reality of his vigorous promotion of this ideology and policy. The same applies to Cameron’s rhetoric over mass immigration and membership of the EU, which whilst seemingly chiming with public opposition to both, actually signifies the inverse of what people believe he stands for. After all, mass immigration has reached record levels under Cameron’s premiership, and he has of late been pushing for the UK’s continued involvement in the EU, and for the countries within the Eurozone to pull closer together. His use of the term ‘Eurosceptic’ as a self-appellation is thus a deeply cynical and counterfactual one.

Will this news bring a fillip to British Freedom’s political fortunes? It could, if it manages to steer a rational course that whilst drawing attention to its opposition to Islamisation doesn’t overly fixate on this issue, and instead focuses upon its broad extant policy mix, with its alternative to the failed economic models of free market global capitalism and socialist central planning. Moreover, any party that seeks to promote a particular religion in the UK today will fail amongst our people, and a secular approach is essential that can accommodate the irreligious as well as pagans, Christians, etc. Time will tell. Below is Robinson/Lennon's latest interview with Jeremy Paxman.

Update: As of late Saturday afternoon, it became clear that Robinson was not in fact going to leave the EDL, and would instead remain as a leading member of the protest group whilst endorsing the British Freedom Party. An article summarising the decision taken at the EDL meeting can be accessed here.

Speech by Paul Weston, British Freedom Party Chairman

The following speech by Paul Weston delivered in Amsterdam last autumn in his capacity as a representative of the International Free Press Society, deals with the themes of free speech, Islamisation and the ethnocide of indigenous Europeans. Below the speech I have reproduced the text of today's official press release re Weston’s assumption of the role of Chairman of the British Freedom Party.

British Freedom Party Press Release

Paul Weston has taken over the role of Chairman of the British Freedom Party (British Freedom) with immediate effect from 10th November 2011.

Paul has written a number of articles over the last few years which were published at the Gates of Vienna website. Topics covered included Islam, Multiculturalism, Liberalism and the general betrayal of Great Britain by its political class and mainstream media.

A recent survey suggested a majority of people would vote for a party that speaks out in defence of the country, but does not carry any historical baggage associated with parties such as the BNP.

British Freedom intends to be an all- encompassing political party rather than a single issue vehicle. It will of course speak openly about the threat of Islam, something no mainstream party – including UKIP – is prepared to do.

British Freedom intends to exploit this gap in the current political landscape. We will calmly and rationally discuss the precarious long-term position in which Great Britain finds herself. We have no time for racism or bigotry, and no time for anything other than civilised discourse.

Among other things, British Freedom believes:

• There is little sustainable in Britain, particularly so in England.
• Our elderly have been betrayed.
• The middle classes have been utilised as cash cows to fund a bloated welfare state.
• The working class has been placed in direct competition with immigrants prepared to work for a wage that cannot possibly finance a normal family life.
• The young have been propagandised and brainwashed, while sadly remaining uneducated.
• Our economy has been debauched.
• Crime is out of control and must be seriously tackled.
• Our Sovereignty has been undemocratically stripped from us.

The long term problems are formidable, but they must be faced. Career politicians care little about the Britain of 2050, or even 2025, preferring instead to concentrate on their re-election chances in four years’ time.

British Freedom will address our current problems, with a view to creating a safe, just, decent and peaceful country for our children and grandchildren. We will also take a long- term view rather than a short-term careerist view. We are certain that these positions will resonate with a public that has been increasingly marginalised by the main parties.

British Freedom Party elects new Chairman

Tomorrow witnesses the official announcement of the results of the elections to the Executive Council of the British Freedom Party, including to the post of Party Chairman. When the party was established last autumn, Peter Mullins agreed to assume the role of acting Chairman with a view to functioning as a caretaker during the party’s initial year. That year has now elapsed, and it will be announced tomorrow that Paul Weston has been elected as the new Party Chairman of the British Freedom Party.

Weston is a former UKIP member who stood for the Cities of London and Westminster seat in the 2010 General Election. His primary reason for leaving the party concerned Nigel Farage’s categorical statement that he did not see a problem with Islamisation in the UK (for a concrete example of Farage’s attitude to this phenomenon, see this earlier blogpost on the Sandhurst Mosque). Having discovered the British Freedom Party, Weston found that its policies and general stance towards Islamisation provided a much better ideological fit for his position than UKIP. He is sure that there will be other UKIP members who share his position and who would find a more natural home in the British Freedom Party, as well as supporters of other parties who feel uneasy about this issue and, more importantly, the twin phenomena that make this process possible: multiculturalism and mass immigration. Both must be brought to an end.  

Plans for the coming months will bring surprises, with a high profile public figure planning to join later this month, guaranteeing significant media coverage and providing the party with a substantial opportunity for a relaunch. It would seem that the ‘new’ political party being discussed at the recent meeting of key movements, parties and bloggers concerned with the Islamisation issue turns out to be Weston’s new political home.

It is believed that George Whale will remain a member of British Freedom’s Executive Council, whereas Lee Barnes, Simon Bennett, Peter Mullins and Michael Wood will not. Confirmation and full details will of course follow tomorrow on the British Freedom website.

New British Freedom Party Chairman: Paul Weston

Nationalism and the Counterjihad: a new Party?

In February this year there were rumours that the English Defence League (EDL) was about to ‘go political’ and to field candidates for election. This rumour, largely the product of a fleeting flirtation between the Daily Star and the EDL, was denied by Tommy Robinson/Stephen Lennon at the time, but following a low-key gathering in London late last month the prospect of a ‘new’ political force incorporating some form of EDL involvement has once again emerged.

Over the years, a number of ‘Counterjihad Summits’ have been held in various locations across Europe including Zurich and Copenhagen, but this September it was London’s turn to play host. A report written by ‘Baron Bodissey’ of the Gates of Vienna blog presents us with an interesting account of this gathering, and a tantalising allusion to discussions concerning 'the possible formation of a new political party in Britain.'

Earlier this year I cautioned against the EDL entering the realm of electoral politics, and nothing has happened since then to change my mind. It is a single-issue protest movement and as such could hope to garner no more than a tiny percentage of the vote. That is not to say of course that the concerns of the EDL are irrelevant, for that is far from the case, but it should instead seek to hone its message and to endorse a particular political party rather than seek to become one. The question then naturally arises as to which political party should receive its backing?

In February, I suggested that the best ideological fit with the EDL seemed to be the recently formed British Freedom Party (BFP), but after making such a suggestion on the Gates of Vienna blog, it was made clear to me that the Counterjihad movement could not take the BFP seriously because of the oft-recorded rants of leading founder BFP member Lee Barnes. Although Barnes sometimes forwards some excellent ideas, he is unfortunately prone to posting some frankly bizarre material on his 21st Century British Nationalism blog pertaining to conspiracy theories (Zionist NWO being the most-frequently commented upon) and syncretistic ‘spirituality’ encompassing a wide range of pagan and New Age elements, including the Mayan Calendar 2012 Doomsday ‘prophecy’. This latter-day champion of an anti-Zionist Blakeian mysticism, it was suggested, should continue to commune with the angels in the trees at the bottom of his garden rather than become a leading figure in a viable nationalist party.

A work by William Blake, not by Lee Barnes

 

I had high expectations of the BFP when it was founded, hoping that it would become the British equivalent of the PVV, but the rapidity with which a schism occurred within this BNP splinter party and the ill-humour and lack of grace that occasioned the formation of the even-smaller Freedom Democrats, led me to draw back from support and potential membership.

Returning to the recent Counterjihad Summit, 'Baron Bodissey' was shown around Luton by Tommy Robinson/Stephen Lennon before heading to London, where longstanding leading members of the European Counterjihad movement met on Saturday 24 September. It is worth quoting Bodissey at length:

On the morning of Saturday September 24, a Counterjihad leadership meeting convened in central London. A number of people associated with ICLA were present, including Paul Weston, Aeneas, Gaia, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, KGS of Tundra Tabloids, Henrik Ræder Clausen of Europe News (English), Liz of Europe News (Deutsch), and other activists from North America and Western Europe. There were representatives from Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden, the UK, and the USA.

The importance of the meeting was underscored by the presence of several leaders of the English Defence League. Tommy Robinson, Kevin Carroll, and Jack Smith were among those who conferred for the first time with a cross-section of the European Counterjihad.

The most important topic of discussion concerned the current political situation in Britain. The unprecedented repression directed at the EDL and other dissidents demonstrates that the authorities are frightened by mass opposition to Islamization and sharia, and are determined to use any means to suppress dissent.

The violation of the civil liberties of ordinary Britons seems to be a matter of supreme indifference to the oligarchs who rule in Westminster. When dealing with the opponents of Multiculturalism, all three major parties seem to be in complete agreement: dissidents must be squashed at any cost.

Participants from the Continent gave their own perspective, relating the struggle against repression in Britain to the larger European struggle against the illiberal regime in Brussels. Opposition to the European Union goes hand-in-hand with resistance to Islamization, because the immigration regime that is destroying European nations is guided and encouraged by the EU.

Everyone agreed that we are now at a hinge of history. What happens in the next few months or years is crucial to the future of liberty, democracy, and European culture. Prompt action is required, because the worldwide financial crisis will soon reach a climax and limit our choices.

It is interesting to note that participants in this gathering agreed upon a common position opposing EU membership and multiculturalism which fits neatly into a nationalist political paradigm. In recent months in particular, there have been some confused messages emanating from the EDL with respect to ‘multiculturalism’, with the movement at times opposing it and at others endorsing it. The EDL needs to take an unequivocal stand that firmly condemns multiculturalism, for if it does not, it will have misunderstood what is enabling the Islamisation of Britain and will not therefore be able to combat it.

Whereas only one (so far as I am aware) representative of a political party was present at the morning meeting of the Counterjihad Leadership – Paul Weston of UKIP – that afternoon they were joined by ‘several members of the British Freedom Party’ for ‘free-form discussions’ which ‘continued until late in the evening.’ The BFP attendees were not named, but according to a post on the British Democracy Forum, Lee Barnes, Peter Mullins and Simon Bennett were the representatives in question. It would be interesting to learn what passed between the participants, for so far as I am aware, initial approaches by the BFP to the PVV were met rather coolly, whereas the even smaller Freedom Democrats managed to send a delegation to the recent Die Freiheit Conference in Berlin at which Oskar Freysinger made his impassioned speech. Which of these two parties – the BFP or the Freedom Democrats – have been recognised as partners by the Counterjihad movement? What Bodissey writes seems to suggest that he believes that there is much common ground with the former:

The BFP shares a major common interest with ICLA and the EDL: we all believe that mass immigration and Islamization will destroy our countries. This was the issue that preoccupied us over drinks and food in one of Central London’s innumerable multicultural districts.

Bodissey concludes his report of the weekend gathering by stating:

The following day (Sunday September 25) the same group met in a different location in London. This was a broader meeting, attended by a number of additional British participants, including another member of the BFP and a representative from UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party). We elaborated on the previous day’s topics in informal discussions, some of which took place in sub-groups over food and drink.

The meeting adjourned early in the evening so that those who had travelled long distances could make their way home.

This is all very interesting and raises many more questions than it answers. The nationalist political scene in Britain, and in England in particular, is becoming increasingly fragmented with numerous micro-parties, campaigns and movements springing up as the BNP continues its slow-motion implosion under Nick Griffin’s disastrous stewardship. However, many decent nationalists outside of the Griffin clique remain within the BNP as attested to by the contributions to the BNP Ideas website set up by MEP Andrew Brons. Indeed, on Saturday 22 October the BNP Ideas Conference will be held at an as yet to be disclosed location in the East Midlands. Recent articles by veteran nationalist John Bean make it clear that he and many others now believe that the BNP is effectively finished, and that a new nationalist political party is required. Could this link in with the party proposal mentioned by Bodissey? 

The coming weekend should therefore bear witness to lively debate that will hopefully draw a line under nationalism’s decline in this country and contribute to its rapid and much-needed revival. New approaches are required, for more of the same will not do. As Einstein once remarked, insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” It is time for nationalists to awaken to contemporary reality, and to seize the many opportunities that it presents.