Staying in touch with reality
PN
From an X post... in which Pete does his best to remind us that "Those whom the gods would destroy, they first encourage to create their own fringe political movement..."
"...To reiterate, attempting to unite the parties of the right is a waste of time. Even if you could, it wouldn't amount to very much. It would be a fractious, philosophically incoherent, electorally insignificant coalition.
These parties soak up a great deal of energy to no real effect. Multi-party politics only works in a PR system, but we don't have a PR system and nobody is going to give it to us. So we have to work with what we have.
The recent Blackpool south by-election says it all. Labour won the seat with fewer votes than it got in 2019, while more than ten thousand conservative voters stayed at home. They are not taken with populist alternatives, so they have nobody to vote for.
The reason all these alternative parties exist is that there is no centre right conservative party. They are a symptom. Those who seek unity should understand that its is not a good in itself, nor even a means to an end, but something which happens when there are defined objectives.
That means we have to rebuild something out of the wreckage of the Tory party. There are means by which active cells of members can influence and shape it.
Before we can do that, though, we need to define the philosophy, aims and strategy. The Reform Party never bothered to to this which is why it can't break through the inherent ceiling that goes with populism. It is also why it has no future. It will evaporate when Mr Tice gets bored and stops bankrolling it. There is no grassroots foundation. As an entity, it is private property.
Rebuilding a conservative movement, though, is a long term project. Entryism is the method, but it's not enough. We flanking organisations to build nationwide networks to promote and popularise our ideology.
To that end, party politics isn't the way. I believe groups like @NewCultureForum , building regional bases of political engagement, through lectures, conferences and social events, can provide the necessary intellectual foundation of a movement, and also inspire and organise the necessary activism to take control of the party.
Beforehand, though, we need a proper definition of conservatism. We must reject populism in favour of a values-based approach. It doesn't matter if we find those values are unpopular. Our job is to popularise them. As it happens, the core values of conservatism are innate to the British psyche. When properly defined and expressed, conservatism is popular.
Defining the solution isn't all that difficult. We have a wealth of conservative philosophy we can employ. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. But we also have to educate those on our own side who haven't grasped the nature of the problem.
The Tory party as currently constituted has no salvageable components. One-nation Tories are liberal internationalists who have more in common with the technocratic globalists in Starmer's party than they do with conservatives. But the Tory right is also a muddle of conflicting ideology. The ERG faction are free trade radicals, and the so-called "PopCons" have little to offer beyond reheated Thatcherism with a bit of immigration rhetoric thrown in. Stable-doorism.
A functioning movement that can win is one whose policies are born from its intellectual foundation. For our needs, we must advance the ideology of National Conservatism, which is expressed in seven basic principles.
1. National Independence. We wish to see a world of independent nations. Each nation capable of self-government should chart its own course in accordance with its own particular constitutional, linguistic, and religious inheritance. Each has a right to maintain its own borders and conduct policies that will benefit its own people.
2. Internationalism not supranationalism. We support free cooperation and competition among nation-states, working together through trade treaties, defensive alliances, and other common projects that respect the independence of their members. But we oppose transferring the authority of elected governments to transnational or supranational bodies—a trend that pretends to high moral legitimacy even as it weakens representative government, sows public alienation and distrust, and strengthens the influence of autocratic regimes.
3. National Government. The nation-state is instituted to establish a more perfect union among communities, parties, and regions of a given nation, to provide for their common defense and justice among them, and to secure the general welfare and liberty for this time and for future generations. We believe in a strong but limited state, subject to constitutional restraints and a division of powers. We recommend a drastic reduction in the scope of the administrative state and the policy-making judiciary that displace legislatures representing the full range of a nation’s interests and values.
We recommend the localism principle, which prescribes a delegation of power to the respective states or subdivisions of the nation so as to allow greater variation, experimentation, and freedom. However, in those subdivisions in which law and justice have been manifestly corrupted, or in which lawlessness, immorality, and dissolution reign, national government must intervene energetically to restore order.
We believe that government must be by consent, and that all decisions or policies resulting in fines, forfeitures or taxes are subject to a popular vote. We believe everyone has the right to freedom of speech provided they are not inciting violence or crime, or directly threatening another person.
4. The Rule of Law. We believe in the rule of law. By this we mean that citizens and foreigners alike, and both the government and the people, must accept and abide by the laws of the nation without exception. The law must be enforced without fear or favour.
5. Free Enterprise. We believe that an economy based on private property and free enterprise is best suited to promoting the prosperity of the nation and accords with traditions of liberty that are central to the British political tradition. We reject the socialist principle, which supposes that the economic activity of the nation can be conducted in accordance with a rational plan dictated by the state.
But the free market cannot be absolute. Economic policy must serve the general welfare of the nation. Today, globalised markets allow hostile foreign powers to despoil Britain and other countries of their manufacturing capacity, weakening them economically and dividing them internally. At the same time, trans-national corporations showing little loyalty to any nation damage public life.
A prudent national economic policy should promote free enterprise, but it must also mitigate threats to the national interest, aggressively pursue economic independence from hostile powers, nurture industries crucial for national defense, and restore and upgrade manufacturing capabilities critical to the public welfare. Crony capitalism, the selective promotion of corporate profit-making by organs of state power, should be energetically exposed and opposed.
6. Family and Children. We believe the traditional family is the source of society’s virtues and deserves greater support from public policy. The traditional family, built around a lifelong bond between a man and a woman, and on a lifelong bond between parents and children, is the foundation of all other achievements of our civilization. The disintegration of the family, including a marked decline in marriage and childbirth, gravely threatens the wellbeing and sustainability of democratic nations. Economic and cultural conditions that foster stable family and congregational life and child-raising are priorities of the highest order.
7. Immigration. Today’s penchant for uncontrolled and unassimilated immigration has become a source of weakness and instability, not strength and dynamism, threatening internal dissension and ultimately dissolution of the political community. We call for a long term moratorium on immigration and aggressive policies to promote assimilation. We demand that those with no right to be here, or no means to support themselves, are removed, and unassimilated immigrants are encouraged to leave.
___
The root of this movement is essentially nationalist, but conservative in approach to government. I do not define this as ethno-nationalism, rather muscular civic nationalism. But the distinction is not all that important.
The priority is rebuilding conservatism, with a view to restoring the nation. Policy is formed from the foundation, and policy must must be proportionate to the severity of the problems. A conservative movement will address itself to the most pressing concerns. The immediate problem is garbage immigration, and it is extremely severe. It must be stopped and reversed.
I’ve repeatedly outlined what I think should happen regarding the invasion of dinghy migrants. There has to be deterrence. Nobody who tries it on should profit from it. Stepping into a dinghy should mean that no more than four days later, you’re in a detention facility on West Falkland. Countries who won’t take them back should expect to see penalties ranging from trade tariffs, taxes on remittances and flight bans. It almost goes without saying that we must quit the ECHR and the Refugee Convention.
But the dinghy crisis is something of a distraction. We need a more comprehensive immigration policy because it’s out of control.
This is where the Reform Party is again deficient. They say we must first freeze non-essential immigration. This implies that some immigration is essential. If industry does not already have the skills pool it needs (on the basis of recent levels of immigration), then it doesn't exist at all, and they'll have to start training one. We need to examine and resolve all the reasons why we seem incapable of training our own doctors and engineers.
To that end, immigration policy is closely linked with education and industrial policy. Universities must no longer run as visa mills, and most should be reverted to polytechnics to address the real world skills gap.
Our immigration policy must be bolder than that though. This is not just a matter of skills and managing numbers. There are direct threats to national security to consider. There are urgent concerns about future societal cohesion, and questions remain as to whether Britain can remain a viable, functioning democratic state when multiculturalism has eroded national unity.
Immigration policy, consequently, must not only address the levels of immigration, but also take corrective action. Britain must be firm on what it will not tolerate.
Over the last year or so we’re seen some dark portents for the future, with rival immigrant groups fighting each other in the streets over political and tribal disputes in distant lands - which are nothing whatsoever to do with us. This is London's future normal. This is what you get when you completely abandon any kind of selectivity in immigration policy. When you have a surplus of unemployable low IQ males, you get anarchy.
Unless we put a stop to it now, we're going to end up building internment camps because the alternative is low grade civil war between ethnic minorities while the rest of us are spectators - and full riot gear is standard patrol uniform for British police.
Meanwhile, it should be recalled that we have a database of tens of thousands of potential terrorists. This is intolerable.
So what’s to be done?
It is clear from the handling of asylum that the Home Office is not fit for purpose. It must be broken up. We need a department dedicated to removals.
The first order of business should be to tackle illegal immigration. It should develop local branches to gather intelligence on everything from Turkish barbers to car washes, and any other place of business likely to employ illegals. Business owners found to be employing illegals knowingly should face bankruptcy and a prison sentence. This surveillance should also extend to police and environmental health officers who can detect overcrowded houses of multiple occupation.
The are over a million illegal immigrants in the UK economy. Sufficient to keep a department of removals in full time operation.
Recently we’ve seen attempts by NGOs and activists to prevent removals. Steps should be taken to ensure no NGO is in receipt of public funds, opportunities to appeal are limited, and activists who interfere with removals must be slapped with a charge for obstruction, resulting in a five year jail term.
That alone, though, does not solve the problem. Britain is still left with the problem of unchecked garbage immigration - those who will never contribute to the economic and social life of the country. To that end, we must remove all benefits from immigrants and remove any entitlement to housing. No benefit forms may be printed or submitted in any language but English.
We must then make a fund available for those unable to support themselves to return to their country of origin. Modest cash incentives may be offered. Considering their drain on the NHS, it is still a net saving even if it’s up to £7,000 a head.
Removal of benefits may result in tent cities. Regular removal patrols will ensure migrants are swiftly deported.
We must also take robust steps to expedite integration. There must be limits to freedom of religion. The philosophers who promoted the ideal of religious freedom did so with a view to ending sectarianism among Christians. They never envisaged having to incorporate stone age cultures and alien religions based on political and demographic conquest.
To that end, we must ban the burka and the wearing of traditional ethnic clothing outside of a place of worship. We then disallow gender segregation in mosques. If Britain stands for gender equality then it must apply to all citizens. We will not stand for the endemic misogyny that goes with primitive tribal customs we’ve imported. Britain must be a hostile environment for the alien cultures who are at odds with our values. Mosques identified as preaching extreme Islam will be shuttered and demolished.
Further, it is almost universally agreed that foreign criminals must be deported, but all immigrants must recognise their obligation to obey the law, and understand that criminal offences will also see their immediate families removed.
An incoming government must set a target of reducing the population to more sustainable levels with the emphasis on social cohesion; removing at least three million in the first five years.
Immigration criteria must then be tightened. We need a moratorium on immigration for a minimum of ten years, after which there will be extensive English fluency testing and skills validation. Immigration from culturally compatible countries will be expedited. Strict criteria will be applied to third world applicants. Success rates from the third world will be minimal.
We must also go beyond the traditional oath of allegiance. We must establish a system of provisional citizenship along with a contract of responsibilities. A five year interview will review citizenship applicants. Those found not in education or employment, without a demonstrably legitimate income, shall be removed. Any evidence of tax arrears shall also result in deportation.
On a final note, we need a degree of voting reform. Non-citizens shall be prohibited from voting. The postal vote shall be restricted. Measures shall be taken to correct the democratic deficit where there is evidence of ethnic bloc voting.