How should nationalists respond to the ongoing surge in electoral populism? Answering this question is the first of the three primary tasks we must achieve in order for nationalist efforts to have a beneficial impact on the future of our people. My prior proposal (see link below) about ideological infiltration of parties like Reform and Advance is the core answer to this challenge. If you missed it first time around, do please read it after this piece. If you’ve already done so, or lack the time at present, the crux of that article is the potential for a concerted and sustained effort to inject nationalist principles and ideology into the structureless ideas vacuum in the brainless populist scarecrow. There is, howecver, a second part to this proposal, so I will address this here, before we move on in future posts to the more exciting and far more widely applicable potential for highly constructive community-building and parallel institutions. The sheer speed of the populist electoral advance - not just in Britain but in many other nations - means that these parties often come to power before they have even worked out any coherent plan for what to do with it. This is true at local as well as at national level. Their overtly Establishment rivals have decades of experience in government and opposition - positions which have netted them multi-million handouts of taxpayers’ money to fund policy development. The old parties of the left also have trade union research departments and a myriad of far-left fake charities working out policy proposals. They work closely with ‘progressive’ parties overseas, exchanging ideas not just on how to beat their opponments, but also on laws to pass to push forward their ‘revolution’. The old parties of the right, meanwhile, have close and very rewarding links to corporate-funded think-tanks. These specialise in developing policies to advance their own interests, and that of the financial and military-industrial complex conglomerates at the dark heart of global capitalism. These need at least a modicum of camouflage as being in the interest of middle and upper class voters, so their existence gives ‘conservative’ parties the illusion of policy competence. The populists have none of these advantages. Furthermore, since most of their ‘unity’ derives from being opposed to the policies of the different elite fig-leaf parties, it is difficult for them to develop plans which do not upset one wing or the othr of their very broad coalition of the disenchanted. This makes newly empowered populist parties somewhat like a young and inexperienced farm worker, who is suddenly given control of an entire arable farm and told to make it work. He has the land and the machinery, even the money, but he is desperately short on seeds and plans for bringing each crop to harvest. A Gap We Can FillThis is a gap which sensible, constructive and realistic nationalists should aim to help to fill. Not because we want these flaccid safety valve parties to succeed as organisations, not because we believe that they will “save the country”, but because there is the potential to make some things better for our people and the future than they otherwise would be. That would “realist” is very important here. There is a very strict limit to what policies it would be possible to “sell” to populist councillors or MPs, and to what they can conceivably put into effect. Thre is no point a group of enthusiastic nationalist policy-makers sitting down to work out a Grand Plan for Total Remigration, or the Honest Money Scheme for the Total Reform of the Banking System and the replacement of the private bank fiat currency scam. Our targets in this are populists, not national revolutionaries. They would never consider, or be allowed to attempt to implement, such genuine changes. That’s the whole point - both of them and of this proposal. Any effort put into idealistic, drastic proposals is just another version of the time-wasting ‘castles-in-the-air’ fantasies which bedevil the nationalist movement. Yet another manifestation of the tendency to confuse what we want in a non-existent world with what it is possible to achieve in real life. Perfectionism is the enemy of progress. What is needed is a group of intelligent, principled but pragmatic nationalists. They need to com from a broader movement, which provides them with access to like-minded individuals who have experience in the everyday running of important parts of our society - middle-ranking businessmen, health service workers with forty years experience on the front-line, recently retired military officers, housing association staff who’ve concealed their nationalism while they’ve seen it all. I’m sure you can think of good, normal, people with the knowledge and common sense to produce proposals to improve the way things are done in the fields they know about. National Policy InstituteThis National Policy Institute should not be overtly connected to a nationalist party. Its purpose is not to develop comprehensive pie-in-the-sky plans for a nationalist government, which will not exist for at least some decades. Its job is to work out practical, small step, politically popular and saleable (you may, if you wish, whisper ‘Fabian’) policies for populist legislators and parties to pick up and implement. Not to save the old world, but to help our people or to buy them time as they take small steps towrds getting through the slow-motion car crash of the doomed SNAFU shambles they still regard as ‘normality’. This will work far better if the populist lawmakers have no idea where these ideas come from. They are much more likely to be accepted if they appear to come from within their own ranks - which is another benefit from the ideological infiltration programme already discussed. That shouldn’t worry us. The aim of this operation is not to get cudos for the Institute or ourselves, but to put good legislative seeds and cultivation plans into the hands of populist administrations.
While this essay is written in specifically British terms, the same gaps and opportunity exist to one extent or another in every country where populists - standing on the shoulders of genuine nationalist forerunners - have become a serious challenge to the old political elite. Above: Germany’s AfD has only been effective as a safety valve because it has involved huge numbers of new people. They are a fertile field in which to sow our ideas. We need to stop resenting their success, and start exploiting the situation instead.Here are just a few examples:Cut Funding for Leftist PapersA simple plan (nationalist software engineers might be able to help) to create a cheap, reliable onine recruitment site for populist-run councils to use to advertise to fill job vacancies. This to be rolled out in tandem with a ban on the use of council budgets to pay for advertising in legacy newspapers. This isn’t just aimed at the welfare state bureaucracy gravy-train which helps keep the loss-making Guardian afloat. Most of the local newspapers in major towns and cities were swallowed up by big publishing chains decades ago, with the Mirror Group being particulary powerful. These leftist paper have long operated a mutual support scam with big Labour councils: The papers attack their opponents, promote their agenda and help them win local elections. In turn, the councillors hand them huge chunks of taxpayers’ money to advertise jobs in their pages, as they were a hundred years before the Internet. This is all as unncessary as it is corrupt - sweep it away! Secure Our Right to Self-HelpEvery ethnic, religious and sexual minority in the country can set up charities and create and run institutions for the benefit of their own interest group - except for the ethnic British in general and the English in particular. Plus heterosexual males, of course. The entire Equality industry was created from the very start to put us at a huge disadvantage compared to all the other groups in our increasingly Balkanised society. This is so monstrously unfair, and divisive that, even if a future Reform government refuses to address it, a law to put things right would still be very achievable. An intelligent grass-roots campaign outside parliament, coupled with a well-worded Private Member’s’Bill put foward by Reform backbenchers, would be something which it would be too politically costly for Nigel and the others at the controlled top to resist. We will examine just how critical this reform is to future of our movement and people later in this series. This is here just to show how it is a seriously achievable goal. Support for Our HeritageAs the demographic shift against the former majority population continues, and as the Boomers die off, all sorts of heritage sites which are at present maintained and run primarily by elderly volunteer labour are going to become increasingly untenable. Cast your mind back to the last time you enjoyed a visit to a castle or cathedral, think of the people manning canal or steam railway infrastructure, museums of industrial or rural life, etc, etc. Even the milksop, civic integrationists prattle on about how this heritage is vital for our ‘common British identity, blah, blah’, but it is all going to start to collapse and shut down as the demographic that keeps it going shrinks and dies off. A Bill to cut a percentage out of the deeply unpopular foreign aid budget, and to ring-fence it for the long-term support of heritage attractions, would be very popular. It would earn a populist administration political brownie points with a range of special interest group voters, while helping to preserve vital parts of our heritage. Self-Defence is No OffenceOn the back of an outrage such as the Huntingdon stabbings, an emergency Bill to give citizens with clean records the right to carry pepper spray, and to use it to defend themselves and other innocent people in th event of such attacks. This is a good example of the superiority of ‘possible’ over ‘principle’. In principle, I believe firmly in a First Amendment-style right of freeborn indigenous citizens to own, carry and to use them in self-defence against criminal scum - whether they are violent thugs or tyrants. Unfortunately, there is not the faintest possibility of such rights being secured this side of the coming Catastrophe. The right to carry pepper spray, by contrast, is an achievable goal - and one which would slightly increase the self-defence ability and chances of survival of decent people. To oppose such a reform would be political suicide, so provided the proposal was honed and ready to go, aready in Green Paper form, it woud stand a very good chance of becoming law. Achievable and PopularI am sure you can think of many more small, achievable and innately popular improvements which could be proposed and worked out in detail to help all sorts of people and campaigns in our national community: Homeless veterans, homeschoolers, volunteer organisations, opposition to intrusive surveillance, the defence of cash, genuine conservation causes, and so on. There is almost no limit to the areas which could be explored, and in which nationalist-inspired policy proposals could make a real difference. What Would It Take?What would this take in resource terms? As already indicated, it needs a dedicated team, with support and ecouragment from, and links to, a broader nationalist movement. I am reminded of the Media Monitoring Unit, which I set up for the BNP when John Tyndall first asked for my help in modernising the party. This was run by a small team of talented volunteers who I found already within the ranks, but whose talents had not until then been unleashed. Dr. Stuart Russell (aka Doc Edwards, later our National Press Officer) and the irrepressible Chris Green were the wonderful pair at the heart of this, but together we built a small network of volunteers around the country, They operated a telephone tree by which to alert each other to opportunities to get on radio talk shows and the like. Over several years, it made a noticeable difference to the tone of the national debate, particularly on immigration.Both of them are dead now, but they and their colleagues made a real difference to the rise of the BNP with their consistent and effective campaigns. Small teams with a mission can get things done. It needs a small income to fund things such as an internal network for exchanging ideas and holding meetings and workshops. It needs a small management team to set targets and review progress. All volunteer-based organisations tend to lack the continuity and focus of bodies whose members are paid to do their jobs, but input and oversight - perhaps from people paying a small monthly due for the privilege of being allowed to submit comments on early proposals - and being answerable to the body providing the running subsidy will mitigate this problem. It would also need a ‘delivery system’ to get the proposals into the hands of the right people. Fortunately, there is no problem with this, provided the ideological infiltration programme receives the significant but very reasonable investment it requires, as set out below. As you will see, this is an initiative which is neither rocket science nor expensive. It simply requires effort - much of which is currently being expended in isolated, and all too often impractical, maximalistic grand schemes - to be directed, realistically and consistently, into producing and polishing practical ideas. To put, quite simply, some nationalist brain cells into the empty head of the populist scarecrow.I am not writing this series out of academic interest. If existing nationalist bodies refuse to pick these ideas up and run with them, then WE need to do the job. To receive new posts and support this vital work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. NOW! |
