David Jones of Todmorden - Borough Councillor on 3 May 2012?

David Jones of the British People's Party and Joseph Stalin at the Tate Britain

David Jones at Parliament Square

David Jones endorsing the anti-war message of the late Brian Haw

Have you noticed how peaceable nationalists are compared to successive warmongering governments of our liberal establishment?

Nationalists and Muslims against liberal wars!

David Jones looking upon the Houses of Parliament from Parliament Square

David Jones without shades at Buckingham Palace

David Jones with shades at Buckingham Palace

Outside the pub

At The Victoria at Victoria

A typical tourist's photo

Ethno-Nationalist and Civic Nationalist shaking hands

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2072383/Eccentric-town-Todmorden-growing-ALL-veg.html

http://www.bpp.org.uk/fb25a.pdf

http://www.bpp.org.uk/fb25b.pdf

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article/1684/the-odd-couple#.T3DqEWRbzOs.twitter has the rather sceptical reaction of Hate Not Hope to our proposal to improve race relations.   We shall prove them wrong.

Democracy, Onepartyism and Electoral Reform

We live in an elective oligarchy, not a democracy.

An oligarchy is a political oligopoly, or cartel, if you prefer.

A cartel is a conspiracy of providers who have mutually agreed to carve up a market between themselves and will do all in their power to keep out any competition.

Democracy in the old-fashioned sense was Athenian Democracy and this took the form of citizens being allowed to vote on policies and laws as individuals.

A modern form of this would be government by referenda, which of course we do not have. In fact, the British are the worst-treated nation of all the EU nations since most of them have already had a referendum on Maastricht and the Lisbon Treaty, while the British were denied a referendum on either.

Clearly, for direct democracy to operate, the exercise of voting for parties would become redundant.

Clearly, too, the form of democracy that operated in Ancient Athens and Republican Rome was without party, because the citizens of Rome would vote for or against laws. (Shifting factions are of course unavoidable.)

In a modern state however, a party would be necessary, if only to count votes, field candidates, propose policies etc.

But to even propose this raises the spectre of a one-party state and all the horrors that our knowledge of Hitler, Stalin and Mao will bring to mind.

The only flourishing and functioning one-party state is of course China. The continually revised constitution of the Chinese Communist Party reveals that they have got the theory right at any rate, and there are articles in it that are there to safeguard the rights of individual members against the leader and his cronies.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-10/25/content_6944738_1.htm Article 4

China is, ironically and paradoxically, the only country that is practising direct democracy, albeit with a very narrow franchise.

Perhaps the reason why it is now doing so well is because the system now practised in China is the most rational of all known forms of government. All the best people join it, the rewards are enticing, and there will be no problems with succession under their finely balanced constitution. The leader is elected by the Politburo (consisting of 9 members). The Politburo is in turn elected by the Politburo Standing Committee (consisting of 27 members) and also elects members to the Politburo Standing Committee.

If their current leader falls under a bus, there will be at least 9 people waiting in the wings with the experience and the talent to replace him, unlike our sad sorry system we like to pretend is a democracy.

International Marxism, National Socialism and "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" AKA Pragmatic Nationalism

Now on the second volume of Mein Kampf, it is quite clear that, whatever you think of Hitler and his incoherent racial theories, he cared deeply about social justice and wanted to improve the lot of the poor.

It should be noted that the party that he joined was the Labour Party, which he very successfully moulded to take the form of his particular ideology.

National Socialism was therefore the anti-thesis of International Marxism because National Socialists wanted socialism for their own country, but rejected World Communism, which was a feature of International Marxism.  

Trotsky clung to Marx's purist goal of World Communism until Stalin decisively saw to it that the Russians concentrated only on Russia Empire.  Mao was only interested in the Socialism for China and not any other peoples who did not come under the rule of China.

It could therefore be said that any form of Socialism that had no international ambitions is in fact National Socialism.

The Russians can be said to have given up on their National Socialism the moment Gorbachev abandoned their one-party system - which is the distinguishing feature of National Socialism.

It can therefore be said that the Chinese remain the only living flourishing practitioners of National Socialism (with Chinese characteristics), which is a very interesting thought indeed.

National Socialism appears to have served the Chinese rather well.  They have certainly made a point of not being obviously aggressive and expansionist.  "One country two systems" demonstrates that they are capable of compromising when the need arises.  Since China is undoubtedly an empire, they are very keen emphasising racial harmony, very understandably.

What a shame Hitler is not alive today.  It would be delicious to be able to put the point to him on The Today Programme, perhaps, that his National Socialism is perhaps being implemented better by the Chinese than by the Germans, and whether he still stands by all the nonsense that was his racial theory.

He did after all say:

"Believe me, National Socialism would not be worth anything if it were to be confined to Germany and did not secure the rule of the superior race over the whole world for at least one or two thousand years."

It would be delicious to be able to call the Singaporeans Nazis too, but it appears they only have a de facto one-party state, not a de jure one.  Shame.