Share |

Sunday, 18 November 2012

Party Progress: Part One

It seems that the internet is abuzz with news and rumours pertaining to new political parties these days, although quite how new their content may be, is another matter altogether. Some of them are focused on single issues, whereas others see themselves as successors to a small ethnonationalist party in terminal decline. Not unnaturally, some readers of this blog may have concluded, given the statement made here earlier this year, that one or two of these rumoured new parties may in some way be linked with this announcement, or backed by this blog; they are not. Why this should be the case will become clear in the paragraphs below. However, before outlining precisely what it is that we propose, and characterising in broad ideological terms what we are and the values that we stand for in the next article, it will first be necessary to provide a digressive introduction, for it is an unfortunate fact that from the outset it is likely that we will be attacked and deliberately misrepresented by our political foes. It is in recognition of this coming campaign of disinformation that this outline is given, so that unprejudiced readers may adjudge for themselves what we truly are and wish to achieve, rather than running the risk of having them misled by the defamatory lies and distortions of those who oppose the emergence of a genuine non-globalist political alternative in our country today.

Earlier this year, I wrote a series of articles that outlined the need for the creation of a moderate political party that placed the national interest first; that had amongst its primary goals the advancement of the material well-being of the people of this country and the recognition that sovereignty inheres within the people and flows from them, not from any supranational agency or body. Part of the recent crisis of confidence in democracy has arisen from a lack of accountability and responsiveness on the part of political elites and, although it has not been articulated quite so frequently, of a nascent transnational economic stratum to which they are linked, and with which they overlap in terms both of outlook and membership. The intent of what was written therefore was to turn attention to this democratic deficit, and to propose a remedy in the form of the creation of a credible and moderate political party, which unlike the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat or Green parties would not advance the principle of globalism, but that of popular national participatory democracy. Whereas our current party political system militates against choice and in favour of technocratic managerial authoritarianism of one flavour or another, our proposed party advocates a thoroughgoing democratisation.

Marx and Hayek: In Globalism we trust 
For those on the Far Left, the principle of national sovereignty is anathema upon doctrinaire grounds, for it is believed to hamper the coming of the desired-for socialist millennium, whereas for the capitalist advocates of globalism, national sovereignty is seen as an unwelcome hindrance to the transnational movement of capital, goods and labour. The two therefore, have become vigorous advocates of an interrelated set of ideologies: transnationalism; globalism; cosmopolitanism and ‘diversity’. The disciples of Marx and Hayek have paradoxically united in their opposition to such inconveniences as national self-determination and democracy, with both promoting a politico-economic fatalism that portrays globalisation as an unstoppable, inevitable and desirable process. There is no conspiracy as such at play here, but rather the complex interaction of different material interests and ideologies embodied within and articulated by a plethora of non-state, sub-state and transnational actors, whether they be commercial, political or cultural. The revolutionary Marxist Left has since its inception sought not to ameliorate what it terms ‘the contradictions of capitalism’, but to exacerbate them, so as to try and bring about an intensification of human suffering, and thereby precipitate a revolutionary situation through mass radicalisation. It is their hope that the current global financial crisis can be exploited in their favour; globalisation, they believe, is their friend.

Elements of the Far Left have thus welcomed the coming of globalisation and the promotion of its attendant ideology of globalism, and a number of ‘radical’ theories and stances developed by the New Left and US Civil Rights Movement since the 1960s, have been eagerly appropriated by transnational corporations (TNCs) and agencies (TNAs), to lend a veneer of ‘progressivism’ and ‘morality’ to their narrow self-interested operations. Thus it is that the discourse of ‘diversity’ and ‘anti-racism’, largely developed within the context of the politics of the United States, a racially cleft society of immigrants, has been taken up by TNCs and TNAs and employed as a means of challenging the legitimacy of nation-states, promoting the dismantling of border controls to facilitate mass immigration which drives down labour costs, assists in the stripping away of European workers’ rights, and thereby enables an assault to be made upon European welfare states that they portray as being ‘too costly’. The latter is untrue, but TNCs possess sufficient financial clout to be able to promote this message through a compliant mass media that they effectively own. Our party opposes this attack upon the material conditions of working people in the UK, whilst at the same time not placing blame upon the immigrants who have come here genuinely to work, for they have merely taken advantage of a near de facto open borders policy.

The concept of popular sovereignty, of political authority being anchored in and flowing from the people – from the nation – has been subjected to an ongoing and sustained ideological and material assault, undermining the very basis, and hollowing out the substance of democracy itself. Part of this attack upon national self-determination in the UK has consisted of the relatively recently propagated myth that ‘we are a nation of immigrants’, whereas prior to the post-war waves of mass immigration which this narrative has been devised to accommodate and legitimise, the situation was rather different. The Far Left scorns popular national democracy as ‘bourgeois democracy’, whereas the TNCs and TNAs do not find it conducive to their smooth operation, so these various actors have found it convenient to recast defenders of popular democracy as ‘xenophobes’, ‘bigots’ and ‘racists’, fabricating a discourse about their constituting a new ‘Far Right threat’, lumping them in with the small number of people who genuinely merit such appellations.

This seeming digression has been provided for one straightforward yet highly salient reason: the proponents of globalism are willing to do whatever they deem necessary to discredit and destroy any opposition to their globalist objectives, and in order to do this, they employ the most potent weapons available in the political arsenal: accusing their opponents of being ‘Far Right’, ‘racist’, ‘fascist’ or ‘Nazi’. In doing so, they not only manage to target those who do deserve such labels – a vanishingly small number of people in any country including our own – but those of us who do not. These smear tactics are calculated and deliberate, and once thrown, the mud tends to stick no matter how undeserving the target. How then should we popular democrats rebut such allegations? It is in fact, quite straightforward.

The first thing to consider when rebutting the above accusations is that those who employ these smears fail to define their terms. So, we must define them, and once they are defined, it is but a straightforward matter to prove that their allegations are baseless. Let us start by turning to the term ‘fascism’.

What is Fascism?
Fascism is an anti-democratic authoritarian movement that takes many forms, but at its core lie the following features: a cult of anti-rational violence, militarism, authoritarianism and national or racial supremacism, often combined with territorial expansionism. The role of law is disregarded, being replaced by the arbitrary exercise of power undertaken by the governing party and its authoritarian leadership. Moreover, many definitions refer to a fusion of corporate and state interests, with private interest being portrayed as embodying the public good. A single ideology is promulgated and enforced, with dissident views being suppressed, and those who articulate them persecuted.

It is traditionally characterised as being of the ‘Right’, but combines features from various elements of the political spectrum (‘Left’ and ‘Right’, particularly in practical terms, are now largely antiquated labels and should to all intents and purposes be discarded, although they still possess a certain emotive appeal for those who believe that they belong to one or the other).

What we are not:
We are not fascists, for we believe in intellectual pluralism, freedom of speech and expression and the principle of holding politicians to account; we favour thoroughgoing democratisation, not authoritarianism.

We are resolutely opposed to political violence and to the ready recourse to military adventurism in foreign affairs. Militarily, we stand for a policy of neutrality and non-interventionism overseas, holding to the principle that our armed forces should act in a purely defensive capacity.

We are not xenophobes or supremacists, and recognise and appreciate the genuine expression of human cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity around the globe, as well as the right to assert our cultural primacy in our own country through ensuring that all official communication is in our native languages, that there is one common law for all, and that children are taught our history and traditions in our schools. All peoples should be accorded the inalienable right of cultural self-determination in their own home territories. We respect and value cultural pluralism, but we reject state-imposed ‘multiculturalism’, which is a different affair altogether.

We oppose the fusion of corporate and state power, and seek instead to ensure that our citizens are protected both from unwarranted state intrusion into their domestic lives, and corporate attempts to drive down wages and depress the general standard of living.

Conspiracy Theorists
We do not believe that there is any cohesive global elite or one in the making that possesses any ‘plan’ bent upon global domination. Instead, we recognise that international relations are governed by a complex interplay of competing and overlapping material and ideological interests embodied within states, transnational corporations, supranational institutions, NGOs, social movements and the media, that at times converge to produce statements and policies deemed to be mutually beneficial and expedient by a number of these actors, whilst at others generating conflict between them. The idea of there being a single aspirant hegemonic force at play in global politics is utterly misguided and unfounded. We therefore do not subscribe to any conspiracy theories centred upon the following: Bilderbergers; UN New World Order; the Illuminati; Jews; interdimensional lizards or any other fantastical force capable of being dreamt up within the mind of a conspiracy theorist. 

We are not racists, for we believe that individuals each possess their own merits and aptitudes irrespective of their racial background. To treat someone in a negative manner because they happen to be of a different race is simply wrong. The selection of candidates in the workplace should be based upon merit alone: the right candidate for the job in question. No favouritism should be displayed in the form of ethnic and racial quotas, or associated ancillary measures promoting the creation of ethnic and racial pressure groups, as is the case today.  

Concluding Remarks
It should now be clear from what has been written that we are not proposing some thuggish, authoritarian, anti-rational politics and system of governance as elements of the Far Left will doubtless claim, but something altogether different: a broadening and deepening of democratic practice intended to promote the well-being of the nation.

Having spelt out what our party is not, the next instalment will outline our broad policy platform and objectives. If after reading this you should find it to your liking, we invite you to become involved in making this party a success. We need a fresh, viable political alternative to the globalist options currently set before us, and the time for the launch of a party embodying such principles is ripe. We cannot bring this about alone, and need to draw in dedicated people with a diverse range of talents. It is up to you.


  1. " Conspiracy Theorists
    We do not believe that there is any cohesive global elite or one in the making that possesses any ‘plan’ bent upon global domination."

    Oh really?

    Denis Healey, founder member of the Bilderberg group:

    This is how Denis Healey described a Bilderberg person to me: "To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing."

    That sounds like a OWG to me, by a global elite.

    1. RH, it is certainly the case that those who meet under the aegis of Bilderberg do so in secret and seek to reach a common understanding with respect to certain aspects of international affairs, and that it helps to generate something of a consensus amongst leading figures in North America and Europe in particular. However, a number of important states are opposed to Bilderberg’s goals, most notably China and Russia, although there has been a recent attempt to bring China into the club:

      Now, I am not denying that a good number, if not the majority of those who attend Bilderberg gatherings, do seek to make international affairs more ‘manageable’, particularly more ‘manageable’ for the operation of TNCs, but Bilderberg’s existence is expressive of the ‘complex interplay of competing and overlapping material and ideological interests’ that I mention, rather than being the determining factor in their constitution (although of course, the decisions reached at such gatherings would appear to possess a significant influence). As China is rising, Bilderberg’s influence may wane providing that China is not co-opted into the system.

      Bilderberg is but one embodiment of the principles of globalism and transnationalism, and these ideologies would not disappear if the Bilderberg gatherings were to cease. We also have the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, the World Trade Organisation and the International Criminal Court pushing these agendas, and although the outlook and memberships of a number of these and Bilderberg overlap, they are not strictly ‘controlled’ by Bilderberg; the institutions and ideologies they embody possess a life of their own.

  2. So far so good. Is there a conspiracy or not? Does it matter? We know the determination of the establishment to prevent free speech and democracy - the mass media; big business and the LibLabCon and their associated Pressure Groups. They are surely enough to keep any true opposition occupied.


    1. Yes, we know which issues need to be addressed, and they will be more than enough to keep us busy.

  3. If this new party is going to have a serious chance of breaking through, it will need to be able to distinguish itself from UKIP. Hopefully, a credible non-globalist approach to the economy will give the party a method of doing just that as this is UKIP's prime weakness and no doubt the reason why it fails to poll very well in solid Labour areas.

    Today, one of the more 'Right-wing' columnists in the Daily Express was giving favorable publicity to UKIP once again and even calling for a Tory/UKIP coalition which would be a disaster for our economy. Apparantly, this journalist doesn't realise that UKIP have no MPs let alone several and that this precludes the possibility of a Tory/UKIP government even if the Tories were willing to form one which they are not seeing as many within that party think they have a god-given right to govern on their own.

    1. Our approach to the economy will be quite distinct from UKIP's, for we too recognise this aspect of their policy as their greatest failing. We will provide disenfranchised voters with a genuine alternative that will aim to revitalise the productive sector with a view to putting public finances and services onto a sound long-term footing. Anyway, I run ahead of myself here, for these issues will be dealt with in outline in the next instalment.

  4. i admit to not getting up to speed on this matter.
    what do you call your party?
    pardon my iggerence.

    1. Different. No, seriously, once it finally goes live all will be revealed.

  5. I will be interested to see how your new party develops.

    What I am not too keen on with your site,is it's emphasis on an EDL-like worldview:that the only problem we have is "militant Islam",whereas this is really just a symptom of the problem,which is the importation of millions of people into this country.As for militant Islam,I want to avoid supporting the occupation of Afghanistan,siding with Israel,interfering with countries like Somalia etc.,as part of some clash of civilisations.

    1. I wouldn't claim that the phenomenon you mention is our only, or indeed, our primary problem. The underpinning problem is clearly globalisation together with its accompanying ideology of globalism and their assault upon the principle of national sovereignty and territorial integrity. As for military adventurism, in the many hundreds of articles posted on this blog you will not find any calls for overseas interference, but rather for withdrawal from those conflicts - such as Afghanistan - in which we have become embroiled: they are pointless. We are not interested in offering assistance to Neocon meddling in other countries.

    2. Thanks for the reply Durotrigan(or should that be Mr Trigan?).Keep those Musings coming!

  6. Excellent article Durotrigan. However, I beg to differ on the NWO/conspiracy part. It seems to me there must be an elite who wield considerable behind-the-scenes influence to unleash pan-establishment, orchestrated "projects" upon the public psyche.
    Examples would be "celebrity culture", rabid anti-nationalist smear campaigns, gambling, multiculturalism, "Girl-Power", loans, making homosexuality "cool" etc etc.
    These establishment/media initiatives are launched seemingly from nowhere and in co-ordinated waves. By observing the all-pervasive and artificial nature of these contrivances, one can logically deduce that it necessitates an organising intelligence to both create and drive them.

    This is what the new party will be up against no-matter how sensible or democratic it is. Personally I believe that before any significant electoral success could be achieved, the evil power that the mainstream media has over peoples opinions must be comprehensively smashed.

    1. I agree that the so-called 'mainstream' media is a real problem not least for the fact they can steer people away from genuine nationalist parties into the cul-de-sac of Tory Party mark 2's like UKIP. But how do we smash their poisonous influence? Do we have any patriotic billionaires in Britain willing to fund an alternative media?

  7. Since 1945 Britain has been under attack in a new kind of war. A very different war to the military threats we faced in 1940 and previous centuries when we clearly knew who and where the enemy were.
    The globalists new battlefield is psychological, and its objectives are to capture territory within the collective human mind. Once psychological capitulation has been achieved, the capture of geographical territory is but a simple matter.
    The new war is being waged using weapons never before possessed in human history. Those are the mind-altering devices of the mainstream media - multi-channel TV, the press, multiculti pushing internet sites,the advertising media. All the stuff that people, sit - watch - and passively absorb. Then, unsurprisingly, when prompted they parrot the concepts they have been fed.
    What to do about it? We are under assault from psycho-weaponry of which people are only dimly aware. Therefore we must respond by engaging the enemy on a psychological level. A favourite trick is to brand political patriots as "evil". (nazi, fascist, extremist, far-right) We could start by branding the MSM as evil - controlled propagandist whores, vicious liars, mind-poisoners, mouthpieces for foreign interests, gutter journalism etc - illustrated with examples like phone hacking, concocted stories, how they feed on rotting garbage and exploit people weaknesses. Keep sowing the seed of doubt until they have no credibility left.
    As a metaphor for the MSM, there was a gruesome charm in the middle ages called the "Hand Of Glory". Basically it was the severed hand from a criminal who had died on the gallows. Tallow wicks were then placed at the ends of its fingers and lit. Its power was to send victims into a deep, paralytic sleep. Burglars were supposed to have used it while they robbed peoples houses, thereby rendering the occupants powerless to resist. Sound familiar anyone?

  8. Could we have a statement to the effect of 'promoting the identity of indigenous Britons' - I can't see what so called minority ethnic groups could find so objectionable about this objective for national self preservation, unless they wish to see us wiped out with the tide of 'globalism' of course. But native British identity has to be understood, valued and respected by our populus or else they will never see any reason in supporting a nationalist party - as the globalists have long understood, which is why they have systematically sought to undermine and suppress that same native British identity.

    North-West Nationalist


Comments that call for or threaten violence will not be published. Anyone is entitled to criticise the arguments presented here, or to highlight what they believe to be factual error(s); ad hominem attacks do not constitute comment or debate. Although at times others' points of view may be exasperating, please attempt to be civil in your responses. If you wish to communicate with me confidentially, please preface your comment with "Not for publication". This is why all comments are moderated.