Translate

Tuesday, 14 February 2012

Conscripts and Volunteers in politics

Conscripts are political activists who only became active because some government policy has adversely affected them eg immigration.

Volunteers are those who are capable of recognising the purpose and importance principle, notice when they are being infringed, and care enough to do something about it, even if they themselves are not hurting.  .

Unfortunately, in the nationalist movement, they are mostly conscripts, because most of them wouldn't dream of being in politics until and unless they feel their own interests to be at stake.   Conscripts make poor activists and leaders.

That is probably why the nationalist movement appears to have such a small pool of not particularly talented people who are always fighting amongst themselves.  It is to do with class, education, motivation and the ability to talk to a wide range of people.    

If there were no foreigners these people would be knocking seven bells out of each other anyway.  The fact is that most of them are not very nice to each other, and are not encouraged to by the leader, who prefers to divide and rule.

Nationalism cannot be confined only to the lower classes who resent sharing their neighbourhoods with foreigners and Muslims.

The English, being incorrigible snobs will never feel comfortable with the idea of being represented by people like that.

It needs something noble, visionary and inspirational for the concerned British citizen of all classes, races and religions.   It actually needs to be a combination of the Conservatives and Labour, but with added moral courage and economic realism as well as an impressively radical libertarian agenda that will firm up law and order while freeing businesses from red tape, to make Britain the nation of shopkeepers it used to be.

The deserving poor will be helped by charity and the undeserving poor will be told in no uncertain terms that that is what they are.

Sadly, even the very idea of deciding who is deserving and undeserving - involving the use of one's judgement - is viewed with horror and disgust by the liberal establishment, because that would be - shock horror - "judgemental".

Should such people, who abhor the use of Reason and Judgement, ever have been in charge of the ship of state?

Is it not time that they are gently but firmly escorted out of the Houses of Parliament, one by one?

A nationalist party would be business-friendly, and the white working classes will have to get used to the idea of being made fit for the purpose of work again.   Such a party should also have the courage to declare that it wishes to dismantle the welfare state and all anti-discrimination thoughtcrime legislation contained in the Equality Act.

For Nationalism to succeed, it needs to be big, bold and inclusive while also representing an opportunity for the moral regeneration of Britain.

Nationalism has no future if it is seen as small-minded, fearful and forever complaining about immigration, clinging to the Liberal Left heaven that has been created, but wanting the foreigners and Muslims who do the work expelled.   It also needs to be seen to pick a fight with feminism and liberalism, and win it.  Not too difficult, you would have thought, if they can find a leader capable of putting this to the British voter in terms that they might find palatable.  I think I can just about do it, as I seem to be the only one with the ideas and the solutions and the ability to express them succinctly and clearly, without slipping into racism and antisemitism.

"If all you do is all you ever did, then all you're gonna get is all you ever got."

No comments: