The only thing that should matter for those who call themselves nationalists is whether something is for or against the national interest.
My definition of the national interest is the long term good of the nation.
The nation consists of different groups within which there are competing interests to be wisely and fairly balanced.
It is a matter of practical politics as to whom one includes and excludes from being a member of that nation.
Ethno-nationalism is a contradiction in terms for it is, as far as I can see, but tribalism and racial preference. It is not working in Israel, the caste system (also based on birth origins) in India is socially divisive and pernicious, and apartheid did not work in South Africa. The writing is therefore on the wall for these morally bankrupt ideologies who are only promoted by those who are "well born".
Britain is still a white majority country and so whatever benefits the majority of white people could be said to be in the National Interest.
In my view, the policies that would most benefit the nation would be policies crafted to encourage the lower middle classes, ie those who aspire and those with a work ethic. This would include the small independent businessmen, the man in the white van, the Asian owner of your local corner shop. Policies that favour trade unions and big business are therefore against the national interest.
This would mean a meritocratic educational system that is keen for excellence to flourish rather than one that has an ideological imperative to impose equality of failure while hiding the failure of education in this country. This would mean selective education, the end of mixed ability teaching, and the rigorous implementation of streaming according to ability.
This will make the Liberal Left gnash their teeth, rend their garments and tear their hair, but we need to tell them in no uncertain terms where to go and which of their orifices they can stuff their toxic ideology up.
The way forward is reasonably clear. To me anyway.
My definition of the national interest is the long term good of the nation.
The nation consists of different groups within which there are competing interests to be wisely and fairly balanced.
It is a matter of practical politics as to whom one includes and excludes from being a member of that nation.
Ethno-nationalism is a contradiction in terms for it is, as far as I can see, but tribalism and racial preference. It is not working in Israel, the caste system (also based on birth origins) in India is socially divisive and pernicious, and apartheid did not work in South Africa. The writing is therefore on the wall for these morally bankrupt ideologies who are only promoted by those who are "well born".
Britain is still a white majority country and so whatever benefits the majority of white people could be said to be in the National Interest.
In my view, the policies that would most benefit the nation would be policies crafted to encourage the lower middle classes, ie those who aspire and those with a work ethic. This would include the small independent businessmen, the man in the white van, the Asian owner of your local corner shop. Policies that favour trade unions and big business are therefore against the national interest.
This would mean a meritocratic educational system that is keen for excellence to flourish rather than one that has an ideological imperative to impose equality of failure while hiding the failure of education in this country. This would mean selective education, the end of mixed ability teaching, and the rigorous implementation of streaming according to ability.
This will make the Liberal Left gnash their teeth, rend their garments and tear their hair, but we need to tell them in no uncertain terms where to go and which of their orifices they can stuff their toxic ideology up.
The way forward is reasonably clear. To me anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment