By Andrew Brons.
There are some words that have precise meanings and facilitate clear expression and logical thought. There are others that are designed to make meanings unclear and reasoned consideration difficult.. Moderation and Extremism fall into the latter category. They are words that prevent clarity of expression and impair rational discourse. They are words coined to prevent people from thinking for themselves.
As George Orwell recognised in Nineteen Eighty Four, those who would stop us from thinking freely and for ourselves, must first interfere with our language. Orwell envisaged only reductions in our vocabulary. However, the thought-stoppers have also invented words: Moderation and Extremism are the most important examples.
They are words that tell us to stop thinking and applaud or reject respectively. If somebody is depicted as moderate, we must embrace him or her enthusiastically, regardless of the evidence. If a person should be accused of extremism, that in itself must prevent us from giving that person or party objective consideration.
Extremism is particularly problematic. It might be used to refer to people who use, advocate or plan to use violence or illegality to achieve their ends. However, the word is also used to describe people and parties, whose aims are beyond the consensus of the Political Class, even though they might observe the law and eschew violence. However, worse than that is the deliberate attempt to persuade us that the two meanings are the same and are interchangeable.
What then of Moderation? Should we pursue the label as a passport to success – as a necessary condition for success if not a sufficient one?
Moderation, like its opposite, has two distinct meanings: adherence to the consensus views of the Political Class; and secondly acting non-violently, speaking in measured tones and using careful language and treating other persons and peoples with respect. The two meanings, like those of Extremism, are used as though they were identical.
People and parties, whose policies go beyond the bounds set by the Political Class, are accused of hate speech, however moderate their terms and tones and however many qualifications and exceptions are attached to their propositions.
So what must be our response? There are those who believe that the only path to success is to embrace (or pretend to embrace) Moderation in both senses and to reject (or pretend to reject) Extremism in both senses.
My response is that, if we reject the policies (and more importantly the principles on which they are based) of the Political Class, we must say so, at least as far as the law allows in each country. If we are prevented from prescribing our policies, we must not allow ourselves to be bullied into silence about our principles.
People who pretend to believe in the principles and policies of the Political Class, will always fail because the Political Class will always be better able to advocate its ideas than we shall ever be.
However, there is a more important reason. Most normal people are not, by nature, dishonest. They will seek concurrence between what they think and what they say. If they cannot base what they say on what they think, they will base what they think on what they say. They will start to think what they are saying. They will, in short, have joined the Political Class without any reservation or qualification.
Does that mean that we must express ourselves without restraint? No! We must always speak in measured terms and tones and we must speak of others and other peoples with respect. We must avoid pejorative expressions for other peoples or countries, such the expression Bongo Bongo Land, used by UKIP’s Godfrey Bloom MEP recently.*
We must reject all forms of totalitarianism or restriction on people’s political rights. We must stress that we believe in freedom of expression and assembly not just for ourselves but for our opponents too – even for those opponents who would deny such rights to us.
We must not say that this population group or that population group (however defined) does this or does that, as though they all did or at least a majority did it. If we mean simply disproportionately, we must say disproportionately.
What then are the principles that I consider so sacrosanct that they must be expressed and should not be ignored?
The most important is that nations are defined by descent and not by legal contrivance: nationality and citizenship are not be confused. Even the Soviet Union recognised the difference between those two concepts and most Middle and Eastern European countries do to this day. Whilst all were soviet citizens, the citizen’s nationality might be Russian, Ukrainian or Moldovan.
A connected principle is that observed differences between individuals and between peoples are attributable more to heredity than to environment. Greatly distinctive peoples are not the product of distinctive cultures; distinctive cultures are ultimately the product of distinctive peoples.
If our people and our populations understand and accept our principles, necessary policies will be clear for all.
*There might be some who would conclude that the remark at least showed that UKIP was concerned about Third World immigration. They would be completely wrong. UKIP has consistently opposed only European immigration. Furthermore, the UKIP leader Farage was quoted on the Daily Politics Show on 4th May 2010 that Britain should issue 250,000 work permits every year.
3
An excellent article that shows the error of reasoning into which the many excellent patriots who have joined UKIP or the English Democrats have sadly fallen. Particularly valuable is the observation that if you don’t say what you think, over time you begin to think what you say. Lithuanian agricultural labourers are not the real problem, still less are marauding bands of Scots reivers: we are living in the reign of the second Elizabeth, not the first!
Indeed. Third World immigration is the main problem for obvious reasons which need not be elaborated but Eastern European migration is a significant problem too as because of Britain’s lamentable economic performance and consistently disturbing high levels of unemployment.
When our party starts to put forward many candidates for election, I suggest we go in hard against UKIP and show them up for what they are ie just the anti-EU wing of the Tory Party. Their economic policies are even more globalist than the Tories! This is by far their greatest flaw and if they were implemented would damage our country’s economy even more than it already has been by 30 plus years of globalist neo-liberalism. UKIP’s stance on the economy should be our main attack point against them.
Extremism is a situation that allows upward of 200,000 babies to be put to death annually at the whim of a mother, with the connivance of most in the caring industry. Moderation is those wishing it to stop.
In fact mostly everything seen as extreme, is the opposite. Such is the world we the people VOTED FOR.
Yes, Baz4545. Whilst I am pretty liberal on one of the issues that could be construed as constituting ‘social conservatism’ I am pretty hardline on this one. I wouldn’t ban abortion entirely. There are some circumstances in which it should be allowed ie if the life of the mother was at risk as the life of the already-living should take precedence but in general abortion should be something that is very difficult to obtain. There are too many women who use it as a form of post-conception contraceptive.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of easily available abortion there is no substantial public support for changing things.
Small parties can only thrive on issues where they can tap substantial existing public support. Otherwise you end up with self-congratulatory AGMs in a telephone box and being a vehicle for special interest groups. There are always those who will press you towards that outcome for – as they see it – the best of reasons.
I agree that it isn’t an issue upon which people vote generally. The economy is nearly always the number one issue at elections and that issue is one that nationalists have neglected in the past and as a result we haven’t had good election performances in the main. The economy needs to be given greater prominence in our literature etc. Personally, I think this would be not just appropriate in itself but a very good way of making the electorate aware of the fact that UKIP is just the anti-EU wing of the Tories and that they offer nothing substantially different from the Lib/Lab/Con party.
On a more general point, UKIP should be shown-up for what it is ie the anti-EU wing of the Tory Party in seemingly permanent exile and NOT genuinely nationalist. We can do this not just by pointing-out their half-hearted, unprincipled and weak approach to the immigration issue but also to their dogmatic adherence to failed globalist neo-liberal economics. This is their greatest flaw as a party and is one of the main reasons why Labour voters will not vote for them in substantial numbers and consequently why they have yet to make a real breakthrough. We can combat the other parties in this way too. The economy is normally the number one issue in British politics and one that nationalists have neglected in the past to our detriment.
I suppose it’s fairly extreme to want one’s country back……Rick
That is certainly the stance of the biased globalist media.They have been saying any real feelings of nationalism are “extremist” for decades even though wanting to retain your country as the homeland of future generations of your own people is one of the most natural feelings any human being of whatever race or nationality can feel.
Cameron is involved with a charity run by Common Purpose and has neglected to declare the fact…..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10423070/Press-row-PM-faces-questions-over-link-to-charity.html