Women are at the Forefront of Nationalist Success

Women are at the Forefront of Nationalist Success

Marine Le Pen

Alice Weidel

Why French Nationalism and German Nationalism are succeeding when British Nationalism is falling apart? 

The answer is very straightforward: because many who call themselves British Nationalists are just a bunch of idiots who live very much in their chauvinistic past having an approach to women's rights and women's roles that is not much different from the approach Islamic Extremists have when it comes to women's rights and women's roles. 

Many so called British Nationalists are stuck in a very backwards attitude towards women and this is one of the fundamental reasons that they fail, fail and fail all over again.

The Nationalist Movement in Britain needs women and most importantly it needs young supporters to be relevant and to stay relevant. Unfortunately, when the average age at any meeting is about 60, the number of women is few and far between and the young are almost literally absent, the Nationalist Movement in Britain is a dinosaur having its last breath.

Practically in every country there is a natural balance, an almost 50/50 ratio of men and women and it is irrational to pretend that any political movement can be successful when too many male followers want women 'to play their more traditional role'.

British Nationalism is critically fragmented with a vast array of groups whose leaders hate each other. They call themselves political parties when in fact whenever there is a rally you will find that people from different groups (political parties) are in attendance making up the numbers. They are hanging around in spite of the fact that if their identity and affiliation became visible they would not be able to join the groups/political parties they go out to support.

For example, when For Britain or UKIP organise a rally, you will find people from National Front, British National Party, British Democrats, English Democrats, EDL and others in attendance. They can be in attendance but they are not members nor will be knowingly allowed to become members of For Britain or UKIP. If found out, many of those who have joined in would be expelled. The whole situation is absolutely irrational and this happens on the one hand because of political correctness and on the other hand because there isn't a coherent political approach in terms of membership and in terms of a real political programme.

People from different political organisations might stand together on the streets to show that they are against something but they could hardly stand together as one political force because they differ regarding practically everything else. When you start asking those in attendance about specific issues you immediately see that the gesture of standing together and been seen standing together for the sake of numbers is just that. 

Without real leadership, there can be no such a thing as British Nationalism. But the vacuum created by lack of leadership becomes a very real threat. If there was a truly organised and coherent British Nationalist Movement, Britain would be safer. In more than one way, the British Establishment and the Mass Media have been promoting violence. If there had been a truly organised and coherent British Nationalist Movement, Jo Cox would still be alive. The practices of discrimination, political persecution, demonising, discrimination and exclusion promoted by the British Establishment and the mass media - in particular the BBC - promote violence. When people who have very legitimate views and very legitimate concerns are treated as terrorists, when people are disenfranchised, those with extremist views thrive.

Both Rassemblement National (National Rally) and Alternative für Deutschland are extremely relevant, coherent, consistent and purposeful organisations that exist for the common good. They are very valid alternatives within a Democratic Framework. Britain desperately needs the British version of Rassemblement National and Alternative für Deutschland at a time when so called mainstream political parties have become an absolute mess to the point that Democracy itself is in serious danger. When you vote Labour, what do you vote for? When you vote Conservative, what do you vote for? Now many Labour Parties are there? How many Conservative Parties are there? How can it be democratic to be asked to vote for candidates you don't know what they stand for?

For many Labour and Conservative voters, voting Labour and voting Conservative is a bit of a gamble. If you support Jeremy Corbyn but live in an area where a anti-Corbyn candidate is standing, do you vote for the said Labour candidate? If you support Jacob Rees-Mogg but live in an area where the Conservative candidate standing is against Jacob Rees-Mogg, do you vote Conservative? What we have got is not even a shadow of Democracy. Including the option 'None of the Above' on the ballot paper would be a sensible thing to do in spite of the danger that 'None of the Above' gets the highest number of votes. 

  

   

 

What do people really want? Mainstream political parties might not be the answer

Mainstream political parties might not be the answer.

There were Whigs and Tories, Conservatives and Liberals and later on Conservatives and Labour and Liberals. Britain keeps changing and this is only natural. The system kept evolving. There was a time when only those with a certain income could vote. There was a time when women couldn't vote. The system hasn't been the same. It has changed and needs to keep changing to accommodate new realities.

First-past-the-post might no longer be the answer. In fact, when the London Assembly was conceived the system chosen included a vote per constituency and a London-wide vote. You vote for your chosen candidate at local level and you also vote for a party-candidate regardless of where you live within the Greater London Region.

In time, political parties have become Vote Cooperatives - a blend of people who might have diametrically opposed views on practically every issue and only come together under a label in order to get elected. This is an anomaly that leads to people voting for ideas that they reject simply because they come under the same banner ie Conservative, Labour.

Anna Soubry and Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative Party) and Hilary Benn and Jeremy Corbyn (Labour Party) got elected under the same banners and the present crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was made by the way political parties are organised. Vote Cooperatives lead to confusion and crisis. Journalists and politicians talk about splitting political parties and mention it saying that it would be a catastrophic event. In fact, splitting political parties would be the best thing that could happen because it will clearly show the electorate what political parties really and truly stand for.

For many years, it has been said that the House of Lords is unrepresentative because its members are not elected. The House of Commons is unrepresentative because political parties are marred in confusion. When you vote Conservative or Labour, what are you actually voting for?

We could have several political parties with clear political agendas. We could have two elected chambers - a Senate and a House of Representatives. Senators would be elected nationally and Representatives would 'represent' local constituencies and a specifically written Constitution for everybody to know what the rules are. We could introduce a ballotage system. Senators and Representatives would come out of the first round of elections and a President and Vice-President would be elected after the second round to ensure that they have both cross-party political support.

Einstein defines 'Insanity' as the attempt to get different results using exactly the same methods. We can trust Providence to give us a strong leader or we change the electoral system and have a written Constitution.

The political system is in crisis and it will not be mended because Britain has changed and the political system is very much anchored in the past.

Devolution created a whole set of contradictions that included a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly and a Northern Ireland Assembly (hasn't been working for more than a year) but failed to create an English Parliament. Devolution should have been about creating a Federal System. You could have National Parliaments and a Federal Parliament in which all nations could be represented. Unfortunately, expediency and a rush to introduce patches instead of generating a coherent political reality has led to paralysis. Driven by circumstances, the Westminster Parliament is forced to introduce legislation to deal with issues that the Northern Ireland Assembly should be dealing with and it isn't dealing with.

Looking at London and the way London is governed, there are virtually power monopolies and no working Opposition. There are no effective power balances. Boroughs are effectively Feudal States and on top of the Boroughs structure there is a London Assembly with limited attributions. Overlapping authorities create costly confusion and limit accountability. So call Safe Seats are the opposite of a working democracy. We have a system in which - in most cases - you already know who is going to win before the election ever takes place.