Dug in where angels fear to tread

By April 18, 2014February 18th, 2021No Comments

I don’t know what a certain superannuated communist-turned-Establishment-‘antifascist’ has been taking with his late night Ovaltine, but it certainly seems to have given him a bad dream.

How anyone can believe that a London-based talking shop named for a Hebridean island, at whose conclaves fogys old and young are videotaped lecturing on eccentric topics, is a ‘dangerous’ operator is not easy to comprehend.

It reminds one of the White Queen in Through the Looking-Glass, who claimed she could believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

Another impossibility is that a second talking shop, which has been known to have the odd (very odd) Tory MP as guest of honour at its functions, is also a ‘dangerous’ operator.

Dangerous in what sense? I think we should be told.

The future of patriotic politics in Britain lies with a political party that fights elections and continues to fight them, until in due course it wins a few and then some more and eventually enough to form an administration.

I have a shrewd idea as to which party that is, but my natural British modesty prevents me from spelling it out. Let’s just say that it’s doing rather well after having been founded about eighteen months ago.

And this has been achieved without an appearance on BBC Question Time, or Newsnight, or even Russia Today.

Politics may be largely a matter of smoke and mirrors, but it is not entirely so. There must be a kernel of integrity within the party’s husk of appearance if it hopes to thrive in the long run. It is partly for this reason I suspect UKIP’s results in the European ‘parliament’ elections, next month, may probably be somewhat disappointing for its supporters.

But even, for the sake of argument, were UKIP to treble its current tally of MEP seats next month, what difference would it make? It would certainly make dozens of UKIP members more wealthy. But Britain would be not one inch nearer leaving the EU as a result.

Britain cannot leave the EU from the European ‘parliament’, no matter how many MEPs vote for it to do so. Britain can only leave the European ‘parliament’ by a majority of MPs at the UK parliament at Westminster voting for withdrawal.

By taking part in the European ‘parliament’ elections all a party does is: firstly, waste a great deal of its donors’ money; secondly, give those of its candidates who are elected, if any, a personal interest in Britain’s continuing membership of the EU (if Britain leaves, they lose their bloated MEP salary and allowances and their staff lose their jobs too); and thirdly, give a bogus air of legitimacy to what is actually a gigantic swindle on the British people.

There is a fourth thing. By focusing on the European ‘parliament’ and forming a group or front with MEPs from other countries, a party’s leadership is doing just what the EU Establishment wants. It wants politicians to forget about the real concerns of their national electorate and to play the game of Europoly in Brussels and Strasbourg.

In this game the money is real, more than £2 million per year and it goes to parties that collaborate within a large and transnational group. But the hand that gives can also withold. Hence the EU Establishment insidiously acquires an influence over the policies of parties which participate in its ‘parliament’, further undermining democracy in the process by fostering an unhealthy dependence on the largess it distributes.

Can a party dare to bite the hand that feeds it? Can an MEP? Is it likely?

It is all very well to talk of destroying the European ‘parliament’ from within, or forming a ‘front of refusal’ with the MEPs of other countries. What tends to happen in practice is that the MEPs of nationalist parties are assimilated. They become less effective as champions of national independence than they would have been had they boycotted the European ‘parliament’ altogether.

Local elections and those to the national parliament, not to a supranational body, should be the focus of a nationalist, patriotic party. Otherwise such a party gradually ceases to be nationalist and becomes – as the parties of the rotten Establishment are – internationalist.

The democratic road to patriotism is not an autobahn. It is a long, narrow country lane that twists and turns and has numerous pot-holes which can damage the suspension of any political vehicle. Nevertheless, history shows it is the road we should take.

And the French experience shows that the road can be successfully travelled – with a safe pair of hands at the wheel. Of course, should the driver be drunk with power, overcook it on a tight bend and put the vehicle into a ditch, then it is ‘game over’ – for that vehicle at any rate.

It’s not easy but it is simple. There are no shortcuts. The journey will take as long as it takes. And those inclined to ask from a back seat “Are we nearly there yet?” should perhaps bear in mind that it is said to be better to travel in hope than to arrive.

But arrive we, or our successors in the great patriotic cause, will in the end.

We shall save our people and our country, come what may. Of that I have no doubt.

‘These are the times that try men’s souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.’ Tom Paine

‘The path of duty lies close at hand though men seek it far off.’ Mencius.