National Culturalism won't work as a pillar of British nationalism

Nick Griffin and Jack Buckby, the proponent of "National Culturalism"

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/jack-buckby-is-proud-to-be-britains-next-nick-griffin

It won't work because it is not about anything, and no one can define British Culture, not even British Nationalists.

Culture is fluid, and to ask what British culture is becomes a philosophical question, and British nationalists are not especially equipped to ask and answer them.

What do the British do anyway?  More importantly, what is it about British culture that British nationalists wish to preserve?

I have asked Jack Buckby and he got rather angry with me when he could not answer this question, and disengaged.  He has probably been warned off me by the Chairman of the BNP, who might have told him to steer clear of me as I am a bit of a Nazi ....

Nationalism needs to be for and against something that people can understand.  The white proletarian whine  about immigration and Muslims is not enough to attract the votes of the middle and business classes, but it seems these people do not even care, or do not know of the scale of the work to be done to make nationalism electorally respectable.

To be a national movement, nationalism must be inclusive.   This will make many nationalists baulk, for to them nationalism is about excluding foreigners and other races.

It must not only be racially inclusive, it must also offer something for people of all classes, races and religions.  (Currently, it is a party that wants socialism for whites only.)

There is therefore more than a hint of ideological retardation amongst nationalists, who want it to stay proletarian, antisemitic and white and then wonder why they are universally despised.   This sort of thing is OK for a social or activity club, but won't do at all for a political party.

So here are the key points of nationalism, as I see it:

1. Nationalism is for all of the nation, regardless of class, religion or race.  It is one-nation nationalism.  Indeed, you could call it National Socialism without the racism, antisemitism or militarism.  It is racially neutral.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah  (Is this motherhood and apple pie enough for you?)
2. Nationalism is better able to endure and can best be promoted in a single party state and a taxpayer-only democracy.  (It need not be totalitarian if you have a constitution that protects the rights of its members from the leader and his cronies.)
3. It is socially conservative.
4. Its purpose is to serve the long-term national interest.  (The long term is defined as our children or grandchildren not yet born.)
5. Its promotes the greater good of the greater number.
6. It is libertarian in purpose for it is contended that it would be in the long term national interest to have fewer laws and lower taxes.  (Tacitus: "The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.")
7. It will derive its morality and legal principles from the Koran without compelling belief in anyone.   (2:256:  "There is no compulsion in belief, for truth stands clear from error.")  As you all throw your hands up in horror at the idea, may I just  point out that the Koran is actually a lot more lenient on criminals than the Old Testament?  How do you know it is horrible if you haven't read it?  Did you know that the Muslims have been perverting and distorting their religion for centuries with their ungodly Hadith that contradcits the Koran?  Now is the time for the white man to show he can do it better.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYeeUsZ4xc&feature=player_embedded

This is a recording of the speakers at the launch of the British Democratic Party on 9 February 2013 showing in spades they are still not getting the point about ideology.   Only Adrian Davies gets it about respectability, and it is not merely kowtowing to PC liberalism and pretending to go along with it, he says.   Only I can do RADICAL civic nationalism because it is my intention to challenge the view that feminism is as an ideology either viable or moral.  With the official support of nationalists, I can start the ball rolling by getting media attention, because their declared support for me would be a story in itself.  Without their declared support, I can do nothing for them, being merely a bullet without a gun ...  

It would be nice to get intelligent questions for a change.

You can discuss nationalist matters at https://www.facebook.com/groups/327008697419786/

You are cordially invited to challenge my ideas on nationalism too.

1. Civic Nationalism is the only way forward as Front Nationale have shown in France.

2. While ethno-nationalism may be what you really want and think, civic nationalism is what it is politic to say.

3. Civic Nationalism will get nationalists more of what they want than ethno-nationalism ever will.

4. Civic Nationalism will avoid nationalists having to wade through the swamp of racist accusations so other important matters eg feminism, can be discussed.

5. If you accept the above then my involvement would be essential to show you are serious about Civic Nationalism.

6. Civic Nationalism can be radical and thought-provoking, without falling foul of the usual liberal taboos.

7. Only I can promote Civic Nationalism in a way that is attractive and appealing to the media and voter

8. Showing you are prepared to try new ideas and people is the only way of forward.

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

Nationalists who reject civic nationalism are like a poor man saying he will hire a chauffeur when everyone knows he cannot even afford the bus fare.