Friday, 30 March 2012

Back to Basics? - Part Four

Back to Basics? - Part Four

In the second and third part of this series, I was suggesting how we might need to return to some 'normalcy' through promoting our wider values and our policy positions a little bit more often than we currently tend to do. 

They may not always be viable or immediately workable, but when I read the last British National Party manifesto (soon after its launch), I remember thinking it was really quite good and that it suited my tendencies. It had me sold to most of the positions anyway, or the notions behind them.

They may not be perfect in some peoples eyes, but I did not think they were all that bad myself. In fact, numerous policy ideas and positions have actually been stolen by all three main parties over the years. Some of them quite blatantly. 

For example, the supporting rhetoric of "British Jobs for British Workers" under Labour, some form of "national service" uttered by the Conservatives, policies of employee stakes in companies (such as John Lewis) by Nick Clegg.....

How many people in the general public knew that they were our territory? Not many, I would suggest.

It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and if other parties make a success of some of our policies then at least it rolls things in the right direction - but it does get on your nerves how they jump on them and then twist them to fit their own agendas. 

(For example, David Cameron stole the notions of national service for youth and distorted it into some "community cohesion" programme to "mix together different communities").

What also gets on my nerves are missed opportunities. But I will get onto that later.

John Bean, the 'veteran' nationalist offered his opinions on tweaking some of our policy positions late last year. I think it is worthy to revisit what he said.

During the time when he wrote the article, there was a lot of scorn and in-fighting taking place and because of this I thought it tended to get lost too quickly in the mix, or plainly cast out as not important. I will try and summarise it here.

John suggests that......
For Nationalism to achieve the minimum of power required to act just as a brake upon the socio-political policies that are destroying our national identity—let alone reverse it as is required—ideally we need to win at least two Parliamentary seats and five MEPs within the next decade. Council seats and members of such bodies as the London Assembly are but stepping stones. We cannot, for example, follow the tactics of Gramsci and the Frankfurt school with the successful Marxist Long March Through the Institutions, for time is not on our side.
For immigration to continue, even at half of its present rate (as the Tories suggest they are aiming for) for another decade, could mean that the battle is lost. In 30 years at a “reduced” rate it would definitely be lost. Therefore the policy of ending immigration is not negotiable under a reformed BNP or a new Nationalist party. It must take priority over all other aspects of policy.

We can recover from economic downturns and even from EU and United Nations political, cultural, and economic interference. But once our ethnicity is altered it is altered for ever. Those who cannot accept this and would have us soften our opposition to immigration and make it a secondary issue to withdrawal from the EU or revitalising a Christian Britain, for example, should join either UKIP, the so-called “right-wing” of the Conservatives, or a Monastery.

Although we are all agreed that there must be no watering down of our policy on immigration, or any other policy aspects, we have to find a way of presenting these policies so that they are acceptable to voters under 40 and to women voters. For every three males who have voted BNP in recent years less than two women have done so.

The BNP has been failing to recruit, or recruiting and then losing, younger, more intelligent Britons from the pool of potential recruits. This could be because our propaganda is not well targeted in achieving this. Also when we have recruited such people they have been put off by the Party’s culture......
 He recommends the following points:
To facilitate the acceptance by voters of what the Lib-Lab-Con and its kept media will describe as our hard line—or even “racist” policy—on immigration, the Party should support the following:

1. Legislation is now well established which makes it illegal to suggest that those of non-European stock who were born in the UK are not “British” subjects, but it is legal to say that those of non-European stock are not ethnically British. We must no longer pretend that we can get round the legislation.

2. We can still make it clear that our policy on multiculturalism must be to reverse it. The solution can come from an ongoing public debate. We need not produce an ideal plan which could be used to throttle us.

3. In both our literature and the spoken word we must avoid anything that appears as abusive or diminishing the values of other races. This should be extended to ethnic jokes, etc., when members are relaxing at the Party’s social events.

4. In order to diminish the effects of the opposition’s charges that we are racially obsessed our general leaflets and election material should limit the description of our British ancestry as being “European.” We can be a little more specific by pointing out that to describe Britain as already being a nation of immigrants is a nonsense in that Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, and Huguenots all came from a few hundred miles away in Northern Europe and were of kindred stock. [Otherwise] Even on our website, articles discussing this can be off-putting to the new voters we are trying to capture in our time limit. A passing reference: Yes. It can encourage the few to find out more and we must make sure that the right material that will destroy the shibboleths of multiracialism is available.

5. At present possibly a slender majority of UK voters would accept the view that although one race may not be superior to another per se, each has a different culture and that difference is what we are defending. Therefore, in party publications we should run articles from time to time on the cultures of non-European races. This presents no problems with the history of India, China, and Japan, although it might be more difficult with Africa. (* B.A Note)

6. It probably goes without saying that, irrespective of what we all feel, we will attract most support by giving more attention to the economic costs of immigration and the higher criminality amongst some sections, particularly Afro-Caribbean. Several articles on the BNP Ideas website have shown that mass immigration costs the taxpayer £3 billion per annum.
*note: For an example on other nations and our role of showing we are not "hostile to Johnny Foreigner", see this kind of article here

On Europe policy, John recommends......

In the BNP’s last election manifesto, in Section 63 on “Foreign Policy,” we can fully support the view where it says, in regard to realigning this policy, that we should put our nation’s interests first and not interfere with the sovereignty of any other nation. This includes ending the use of our armed forces in conflicts that do not cause problems for Britain’s interests.

Our opposition to continued membership of the European Union is well established. The resultant public reaction to the above two major policy standpoints is often the view that we are rather old-fashioned, not willing to work with “Johnny Foreigner,” and that we have not appreciated that we are dependent on foreign trade for our economic survival.

We need a different stance on Europe to show the brain-washed electorate that our brand of nationalism is based on the realities of the 21st century. We are offering something new and not regurgitating old NF/BNP policies, which the public believed were steeped in the aggression that they were told went with the nationalism of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco in the 1930s and 40s.
Again, like I was hinting at earlier in the series, it is required for us to sell a future, sell a different way forward for the 21st century that is new and 'dynamic' and not seen as tired and old-hat.

John does not believe in citing Switzerland or Norway (non-EU members) as the model though, because the comparisons are flawed in terms of population size and needs. Instead, he seeks to promote a new collaboration with others, based on a network of national sovereign states.

To reduce the risk of it being seen as another federal system, he suggests that we emphasise the repealing of all binding EU legislation so that each nation state can decide its own matters on fiscal policies, immigration policies and so on, and that they have the ultimate control over their own affairs.

John hints at the idea that by having this formation in place, it will remove the blanket EU dictated positions on immigration - and that each nation state, through the will of their respective peoples, would greatly restrict non-European immigration into Europe as a whole. (Here's to hoping!)

John talks about the realities of exports and imports - and I believe that this so called 'necessity' for being in the EU has already been thoroughly debunked in other 'right of centre' parties  and even in the mainstream press (Daily Express). We should make more of the fact that we would be "better off out" on these kinds of terms, if we can show a case.

When it comes to some of the existing policies, John offers the following suggestions and modifications:

1.  Seeing how over half of the electorate feel good if they think that we have given support to the "needy" of the world, but also object to our nations escalating foreign aid policy, we could suggest that a nationalist government replaces foreign aid with a £1billion holding fund for emergency aid to overseas nations suffering natural calamities, such as major droughts, floods, and earthquakes.

2. We should continue to make it clear that we support capitalism in principle. The world’s economic crisis has been brought about by globalisation with the international banking system using nation states for its own advancement, rather than serving national interests. 

For many of us it would seem that the international financial system’s concept of making continual growth the basis of a nation’s economy has brought about the present crisis. 

However, this is not the time for our party to adopt some of the alternative systems proposed, whether syndicalism, Social Credit or a barter system, or others that fall under the “Funny Money” generic title.

We need a banking system but not in the present form where banks gamble with their customers savings, and pay enormous bonuses to the employees who do the gambling.

It is important that we must deal with things as they are and not as they were. Our industry and skills base has been devastated since Thatcherism and this cannot be corrected in a matter of years but decades.

3. Present BNP policy on Capital Punishment is that it should be returned for the murder of children and police and prison officers. As the majority of younger voters have been persuaded to oppose all Capital Punishment it might assist our "non-fascist" image by saying that we would put our view to a public referendum on gaining office.

4. There are good nationalists within our movement who believe that we should stop using nuclear power. The Party membership view undoubtedly reflects that of the public in general: it is split between ‘for’ and ‘against’. 

We should stick to the BNP’s last manifesto which included nuclear as part of our power sources. We could add that we support a cheaper and more efficient alternative that is based on thorium rather than uranium – uranium was originally chosen because it could be used for nuclear weapons.

As the dominant view amongst membership appears to be rightfully opposed to wind turbines, man-made global warming and genetically modified crops, the opposition tries to present us as uninformed and anti-scientific. Taking an anti-nuclear power stance gives them more ammunition for this.

{However}, we are great believers in supporting the application of scientific developments for British manufacturing industry, and would not be supporting a party if it really was "anti-science."

Personally, I believe there is some mileage to get out of some of these things. Even the small ones.

For example, the usual scares about GM crops are based on tabloid journalism of 'Frankenstein Food' and such things, but whilst I personally share the dislike of drastically meddling in natures food supply with chemicals etc, the other thing which hardly gets a mention in the public domain is the 'control' that companies and corporations can have over us.

People are getting more and more familiar with Monsanto and their activities. This is quite frightening stuff from what I have seen and read, and as a result, I think it should be repelled on that basis alone.

If you are not familiar with this, maybe it is worth you finding out. I have no great links because it is not something I tend to concentrate on, but for what it is worth, here is a Max Keiser report. Click. (Don't worry, only the first eight minutes are relevant to Monsanto). Eight minutes, you probably won't find a more concise introduction than that!

When it comes to new technology, we need to get to the "bleeding edge" and create an exciting dynamic for people of how it could be applied, or how we could harness it as a model for industry and a better future.

What are the trends? What are the latest concepts in manufacturing and science? Can we be seen to be modern and for the future? But I will get on to that later!

The point is that we can go weeks, or months, without discussing or promoting our wider message. We are too busy focussing on reactions to things that have happened, or getting into a lather over burkhas or predicting race-wars on the streets.

Of course, it makes sense to us. We are in tune to what happens when a society turns from majority white to majority black or majority Asian or majority Muslim. We know what has happened in other countries under the same historical situations. We know what to expect, or rather, what is likely to happen.

There is a need for that rallying and confirming material, especially between ourselves, but what is best for a wider audience right now? We can lace it in our message, infer things, suggest what might happen - but is it wise to deeply remove ourselves from the average perceptions of wider society right at this moment in time?

Are we fully being understood as a whole cause? What do people really want from us? What else is there we can do which is not, and can never be, on offer from the other parties? 

We know that there are a lot of problems coming with overcrowding, resources, etc. The other parties are trapped, to some degree, in plodding on with the same fundamental stand points.

What are these trappings they will struggle to overturn, and how can we market ourselves as the alternative? There must be some "pressure points" somewhere which we can apply and use to carve ourselves a niche.

No comments:

Post a Comment