Proposed BNP-UKIP Anschluss - why there is NOT - I repeat NOT - a problem

It seems Eddy Butler is coming round to my view of a BNP-UKIP merger.  Below is an extract of his rather statesman-like posting:



http://eddybutler.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-should-happen-in-2011.html

Most sensible nationalists would agree theoretically that the ‘best thing’ would be if all the political groupings on the patriotic, nationalistic, ‘right-wing’, populist, non-politically correct, identity-related side of the spectrum united. That would create a large broad-based party that could realistically challenge for power.

Within that spectrum can be found UKIP, the BNP, the English Democrats and a variety of other smaller groups and independents most of which have split off from one or other of the named parties. This new party would instantly create an organisation with still over a hundred councillors at all levels, a directly elected Mayor, a GLA member, several members of the House of Lords and fifteen MEPs. The party would have over 30,000 members. It would instantly be a major force in British politics. It would have gained the equivalent of nearly 3.8 million votes at the last European election. It would no longer be part of the fringe.

Said UKIP teen bigot and sceptic Leon Georghiou:

"I will steadfastly oppose any UKIP-BNP merger that doesn't mirror the present UKIP manifesto. Of particular concern to me are: free market economics, minarchism, and classical liberalism. The BNP are, of course, the total opposite: socialist, statist, and interventionist. The parties are too fundamentally different for a merger to work or, indeed, be on the horizon, thank God."

I said:

I have addressed this problem countless times, Leon. You obviously don't pay attention. Do you not remember my proposal of:

1. Merged BNP-UKIP promise a referendum on leaving the EU or not

2. Merged BNP-UKIP promise a referendum on whether to have UKIP or BNP economic policies at the same time they are having a referendum on whether to stay in the EU or not.

Sorted.

Am I or am I not fucking brilliant?

Hint: only one answer allowed.

If I were leader of this party - just supposing - it would deflect any suggestion of racism once and for all.  I have never said anything racist because I do not believe that any race is inherently superior or inferior to another.  But I am a Nationalist in the sense that I believe that an ideology of

(1) defining
(2) ascertaining and
(3) pursuing the broad long term National Interest (as opposed to narrow short term party interest)

would be the best way to govern any country.  

The National Interest would necessarily be a judicious balance of the conflicting interests of the peoples of Britain who are, like any other land, divided by race, religion, class and gender.

The National Interest as I see it is therefore not synonymous with the interests of any one group of people, though it is undeniable that the National Interest would favour the majority group of Britain, which also happens to be white and working class.

I see no harm at all in pursuing policies that would favour the the advancement of the lower middle classes - which after all make up most of the BNP.  They are independent traders - rather like Del Boy and Trotters Independent Traders, men in white vans, taxi-drivers and the self employed, ie the people who instinctively want to shift for themselves of all classes, races and faiths.

The slogans would be very simple, popular and memorable:

1.  lower taxes
2.  fewer laws
3.  family values supported by marriage
4.  make punishment fit the crime

Am I fucking brilliant or am I fucking brilliant?