|
BACK TO BASICS We commonly describe as ‘shifty’ any individual whose behaviour is mostly if not entirely opportunist and self-centred; and the same applies to any organisation and political faction. ‘Shifty’ is of course a colloquialism for ‘unprincipled‘, and it is universally acknowledged that principled behaviour is essential to the coherence, stability and proper functions of any society. There can be no mutual respect and reliance on cooperation without a shared framework of principles guiding most individuals’ behaviour. And one has only to know people’s basic principles to predict how they are likely to respond to given situations. In the political context this means that we can afford to ignore all the waffle, spin and window-dressing deployed on various subjects, concentrating instead on what, by implication, are the basic assumptions (few deserving the term ‘principles’) which lie behind them. For politics, like mathematics, is about the necessary consequences of any given set of assumptions. Change any of the axioms of Euclid and you get a very different sort of geometry, which may or may not have its uses. Likewise, change the basic axioms of any political movement and you get a different manifesto. The thing about axioms (basic assumptions) is that they are deemed self-evident or ‘God-given’ and therefore unarguable. All the great prophets, exemplars, ideologues and luminaries of history have promoted a few fundamental convictions as essential to human salvation, contending that as long as these were faithfully adopted then everything else would fall into place to everyone’s ultimate advantage. In choosing your moral and intellectual mentor, therefore, from Moses to Mohammed, from Plato to Marx and Jesus Christ to any other charismatic figure, you are committing yourself to all the consequences which flow from his fundamental declarations. So don’t wait open-mouthed for party-political campaigners to spoon-feed you with what are made to seem inviting and palatable goodies; instead, challenge them to give a straight yes or no answer to what are obviously the fundamental conditions for the survival and wellbeing of the British people. And insist these fundamental conditions are not up for debate any more than the axioms of Euclid or the Ten Commandments or the Five Pillars of Islam Thus anybody presuming to question them has to be dismissed at once as inherently untrustworthy or impenetrably stupid. In short, adopt an uncompromising position on the following axioms of British nationalism:
It should be clear enough already that anybody unwilling to endorse all of the above nationalist axioms is thereby unfit for public office of any description. Also that these fundamentals of British nationalism are a model for any other nation worthy of respect as such. Take a good look at the clamouring Labour, Conservative and LibDem parties and ask yourself let alone their representatives how likely it is that they would deliver ANY of the above commitments. No need to ask such party supporters about any other subject, since whatever their response is at once invalidated by this abandonment of fundamental principles consistent with British survival and welfare. They represent the politics of promiscuity, not principle. To them, people become nothing more than voters more or less likely to get them into office , be they English, African or Asian, Christian or Muslim, responsible citizen or moronic delinquent. Like those given to sexual promiscuity, their behaviour is essentially exploitative, not supportive of other people. They harbour the monstrous conceit that they alone have the conditioning, perspicacity and judgement necessary for equitable and efficient government. But in judging their political declarations, always take note of their promiscuous definition of ‘the people’. So guess who is nowadays wittering on about what constitutes the ‘British identity’; and needless to say declaring it to consist of nothing more than ‘shared values like freedom and the rule of law’. But freedom only to agree with their brand of politics and to submit to their version of legality. If indeed ‘politics is the language of priorities’, then precisely what priorities are discernible in the kind of society envisaged by Tory, Labour and LibDem campaigners? This much is clear enough: they do not apply to the native British people. During any election campaign by the renegade coalition of Labour, Conservative and LibDem supporters you will look in vain for any mention at all of the five fundamentals referred to above. Whether the problem is terrorism, escalating crime, crumbling of the NHS and education services, house prices, unemployment, juvenile delinquency, cultural decadence, drug trafficking, crippling bureaucracy, economic decline, traffic density or absurd judicial decisions, no solution is possible without large-scale repatriation of unwanted immigrants and early withdrawal from the European Union. And anyone pretending otherwise is part of the problem. Accordingly, let this tenacious adherence to the Five Fundamentals be the spearhead of all your nationalist campaigning. By its very pointedness it easily penetrates the fraudulent façade of our renegade opponents and scuppers the hostile media, since they cannot denounce the nationalist credo without exposing their own perfidy. In conclusion then, you don’t need to lose yourself in complex political arguments or abstract theories. Just stick to the Five Fundamentals outlined above and you cannot possibly go wrong in deciding the merit of any political party or argument. Moreover, you will thereby render no greater service to your country and kinfolk. F Kimbal Johnson May 2007 |