Nigel Farage and UKIP: A Step in the Right Direction

Nigel Farage and UKIP:
A Step in the Right Direction

Sean Gabb
(Unedited Version of Article Published by VDare on 9th May 2014)

For anyone not completely in love with the New World Order, most of the news coming out of England is depressing. I will, in this article, try for an exception to the rule. I grant that, since my subject is the rise of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), and since I am a fairly enthusiastic supporter of that party and of its leader, Nigel Farage, I may be guilty of wishful thinking. All the same, the party is currently doing well, and Mr Farage seems to be doing still better. Unless you are committed to the British National Party, and are suspicious of what may be called “The Conservative party in exile,” I think I can show that the rise of UKIP is at least a step in the right direction.

In my darker moods, I suspect that all the things that have gone wrong with England since about 1914 are symptoms of an underlying decline. Let us assume: (1) that ability, however defined, is largely inherited; (2) that, in a reasonably open and expanding society, the more able will rise into the business and professional classes; (3) that the availability and acceptance of effective birth control methods will cause a decline in the birth rate among these classes; (4) that the less able classes will continue breeding at higher rates. Let us add to this the disaster of two world wars, in which the able suffered proportionately greater losses, and mass-emigration of the able, and high taxes on business and professional incomes, thereby depressing birth rates still further, and a generous welfare system to support the breeding of the less able. Take all this into account, and the surprise must be not that England is now in a mess, but that it somehow remains one of the richest and most powerful countries in the world.

But this is only a tentative hypothesis. Indeed, it may be falsified by the country’s continuing wealth and power. Whether they are symptoms of this underlying decline, or effects of a cultural change within the ruling class, let me describe the main specific grievances held by everyone who thinks England has gone badly wrong.

First, there is the exercise of power not through our own representative institutions, but through unaccountable and often invisible global institutions. England has only ever been a democracy in the sense that we were allowed to choose between options put before us by our rulers. But that was usually enough to keep us happy. But our domestic politics are increasingly a dance to an offstage band. Our foreign and military policies are set by NATO and the UN – which ultimately means that are set by the American ruling class. Our economic and social policies are set by the European Union, behind which stands the World Trade Organisation and the IMF, among others.

This is not to say that our own ruling class has become a nullity. It may be regarded as a branch of the American ruling class: it certainly has much influence in Washington at every level. As for the EU and other global institutions, whatever it really wants it generally gets. The losers have been the people at large. We have two main parties to vote for. Whichever of them wins, we keep the same regime.

Second, the draining away of power from our own institutions has been promoted by the Balkanising of the population. We have no idea how many foreigners – white and non-white – are living among us. The Government claims the population is about 60 million. Tesco, the biggest supermarket chain in the country – and this should be in a position to know how much food is bought – believes the figure is closer to 80 million. One problem with immigration on this scale is that institutions that evolved in a nation with a common identity become unworkable. There is no single public opinion. Instead, the country is becoming a patchwork of mutually suspicious nationalities, many of which believe they have more to gain by lobbying favours from the ruling class than by combining to make it accountable. This has now been as good as admitted. According to Andrew Neather, one of Tony Blair’s speechwriters, the purpose of the mass-immigration policy followed after 1997 was to rub our faces in diversity. It was to raise an impassable barrier between our old and present ways.

Third, there is the growth of a police state. This is a natural consequence of the first two. The people at large must be kept from complaining too loudly about dispossession. Also, peace must somehow be kept between the various groups of the people. You cannot have the Moslems preaching jihad against our wars in the Islamic World. You cannot have the natives complaining about the presence of the Moslems. Political correctness is the legitimising ideology of the new order of things, and many of the oppressive laws made in the past generation have been made at the demand of the racial and sexual equality fanatics. But, as said, freedom in the sense traditionally known in England is not compatible with unaccountable government and a Balkanised population.

As a libertarian, I share these grievances, though with reservations. I absolutely reject our military and foreign policy, and our police state. I am slightly less certain about our membership of the EU. It can be argued that, since 1945, England, France and Germany have had a common interest in settling their historic differences, and organising the smaller European countries into a bloc able to stand up to the Americans and the Russians and to any other hostile non-European power. There is the more recent fact that, if our ruling class chooses to rule via Brussels, the EU is a cartel with several dozen other member states, not all of them ruled by certifiable lunatics. Without the need for oppression to be harmonised across the whole European continent, it may be that England would already be an Orwellian nightmare state. But mine is a minority view within the English right. The general belief is that national recovery is impossible unless power is repatriated to London, and made once again accountable.

Founded in 1993 by the historian Alan Sked, UKIP began as a single issue movement. Its whole object was to leave the EU. During the previous twenty years, both Labour and Conservative Parties had found it occasionally convenient to sound Eurosceptic. But Conservative and Labour Governments in the 1960s had applied at different times for British membership. A Conservative Government got membership in 1973. After a pretence of renegotiation, followed by a biased referendum in 1975, a Labour Government kept us in. The 1983 Labour manifesto promised to take us out. Margaret Thatcher made Eurosceptical speeches, but her Government deepened our membership, as did her Conservative successor, John Major. Long before it came to power again in 1997, Labour had given up even the pretence of Euroscepticism; and the Blair and Brown Governments were full partners in the creation of a federal European state. From the 1950s, the Liberal and then the Liberal Democrat Party had been unwavering in its Euromania. UKIP was set up to fight and win elections until it could gain a big enough majority to withdraw from the EU.

Though never a member, I was a witness to the early debates within UKIP. Broadly, there were two factions. One, centred on Professor Sked, saw the party as purely concerned with leaving the EU. The party would have no other policies. This would allow it to draw support from across the political spectrum. Do you want higher or lower taxes? His faction would ask. Do you want state or private ownership of the railways? Do you want more or less immigration? We take no position on these. But vote for us, and we will give you back a political system that will respond to your wishes on these things.

The other faction was made up of renegade Conservatives. They hated the EU because it stood in the way of delivering the economic liberalism and national renewal promised by Margaret Thatcher – promised by her, though never delivered, and still promised without measurable inclination to deliver by the next Conservative leadership. By about 2000, they had won the internal struggle. This was probably inevitable. Since the 1980s, the white working classes had been withdrawing from politics. The core Labour vote was increasingly made up of tribal loyalists, by ethnic minorities, and by interest groups whose interests were best advanced at a European level. There was limited Labour defection to UKIP. But Conservative voters came over in their tens and hundreds of thousands – Conservative voters and activists, and even a few politicians. Then there is the question of ideology. There is a traditionalist Labour case against the EU – the protection of jobs and living standards for British workers, working class patriotism, and so on. But the required policies of protectionism and state direction were out of fashion. Economic liberalism and middle class patriotism, on the other hand, were still in full bloom; and these provided the main case for national independence. The more Conservative UKIP sounded, the more support it got. I have called it the Conservative Party in exile. That is what it was made by the feet on the ground. Every UKIP activist I know started in the Conservative Party.

UKIP has failed in every parliamentary election. But our electoral system is biased in favour of the two established parties. Electors have only one vote, and the question they must ask is “Which party do I want to have a big enough majority in the House of Commons to form a government?” More recently, the question has become “Which party do I most want to vote against?” The answer to both questions is either Labour or Conservative. The Liberal Democrats have enough concentrated support to get a few seats. So have the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists. But the main political game is between the two biggest players. Bye-elections are a different matter. But, while UKIP has done increasingly well in these, it has not done well enough yet to win a seat in the Commons.

Elections to the European Parliament are a wholly different matter. This is a body with little real power. Most decisions in the European Union are made by the Commission, which is its permanent bureaucracy; and the Commission’s main rival is the Council of Ministers, which is an ad hoc committee of politicians from the individual member states. The five-yearly Euro-elections, therefore, are seen as an opportunity for people to vote for the party they really like. Here are the UKIP results for the past twenty years of elections:

European Parliament

Election year

total votes

 % of overall vote

seats won






















Source: Wikipedia

The next elections are a few weeks away, This time, the opinion polls suggest that it will win them outright – beating the Conservative and Labour Parties, and possibly annihilating the Liberal Democrats.

Because of its past and expected success in these elections, UKIP has, for this year’s Euro-elections, been given equal status by the media and the Electoral Commission with the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Parties. It will have the same number of election broadcasts on television, and its policies will be given equal weight. After its first decade of virtual blackout in the media, and a second of at best limited coverage, a party flatly opposed to the existing order of things will fight the coming Euro-election as an insider.

Much of the credit for this remarkable achievement belongs to Nigel Farage. He has fully accepted the logic of UKIP’s position. He stands for EU withdrawal on “Thatcherite” grounds. His economic policies are free trade and low taxes and skeletal regulation. His other policies are to secure the borders and deal with illegal or fraudulent immigration, and to restore our traditional liberties by stripping all political correctness out of law and administration. I have no reasonable doubt that he believes what he says. I have spoken in private with him several times, and watched him speak with others. What he says in private is an abbreviated and more scathing version of what he says in public. UKIP is a force in its own right. But that force is greatly magnified when its leader is a man of conviction.

The leaders of the three mainstream parties in Britain are effectively interchangeable. David Cameron (Conservative) is related to the Queen. Ed Miliband (Labour) is an ethnic Jew. Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat) is half Dutch. The differences end there. All three are rich. They all have the same politically correct opinions, and are committed to the same globalist agenda. In foreign and military policy, they all take their orders from Washington. None has had a proper job outside politics and government. They are all patronising liars. Their only meaningful point of difference is over which of them should lead the dance to the off-stage band.

Mr Farage has made UKIP unbeatable in any fair debate. Its policies have solid and growing support. Any fair discussion of them will only increase their popularity. Because he believes in them, Mr Farage is a devastating advocate. In March and April 2014, he took part in two televised debates with Nick Clegg, who as well as leader of the Liberal Democrats is also Deputy Prime Minister. The idea was to put Mr Farage against one of the most intelligent and engaging front men for the ruling class, and give their debate maximum coverage. The organisers believed that Mr Farage would be revealed as a bag of wind mouthing a few populist slogans. If this what they truly believed, it must be evidence for what I suspect about national degeneration. I cannot imagine what hubris led the Deputy Prime Minister to agree to these debates. He lost the first round, and was utterly crushed in the second. The only complaint anyone can make about the Farage performance is that it might have been even better than it was. He is now the most popular politician in the country. No one doubts the opinion polls, that UKIP will win the European Elections. The only question is whether UKIP can break through to win seats in Parliament in 2015.

But fair debate is only part of the ruling class response. Ignoring UKIP has failed. Arguing with it is failing. But smearing it may still work. Therefore the steady drumbeat in the media of claims that UKIP is filled with racists, sexists, homophobes and general lunatics, and that Nigel Farage is a bad man in his own right.

In 2006, before he became Prime Minister, David Cameron said in a radio interview that “Ukip is sort of a bunch of … fruit cakes and loonies and closet racists mostly.” In 2013, Andrew Feldman, one of Mr Cameron’s university friends, and a close political ally, called UKIP activists “Swivel-eyed loons.” He later denied this to the newspapers, but hardly anyone believed him. Before he could issue his denial, there was a further surge of Conservative defectors to UKIP. Also in 2013, Michael Heseltine – a strong supporter of the EU, and one of the Conservative politicians who helped bring Margaret Thatcher down in 1990, called UKIP a “racist party.” He said: “Of course it’s racist, who doubts that? Farage isn’t racist but his party is very attractive to a racist agenda.”

Every utterance made on the Internet by a UKIP activist or candidate is trawled by the media and political classes, and carefully examined for evidence of political incorrectness. One has been exposed for calling Islam an “organised crime under religious camouflage,” another for suggesting that Nigerians are criminals. Godfrey Bloom, a UKIP member of the European Parliament, was reported to have called the Third World “bongo bongo land.”  Earlier this year, a UKIP local councillor was given national coverage when he suggested that the winter floods were God’s punishment for allowing the sin of gay marriage.

Turning to Mr Farage, he has been subjected to repeated and vicious attack. The mainstream media are filled with claims that he fiddles his expenses in the European Parliament, that he is an adulterer, and that he runs UKIP as a tyrant.

I have to admit that the words reported appear to be true, and the specific accusations against Mr Farage appear to be substantially true. But nothing reported comes close to suggesting that UKIP or its members are preaching violence against homosexuals and the ethnic minorities, or calling for Christian theocracy. The words reported are either fair comment, or used to be part of the common currency of politics when England was a free country. As for Mr Farage, no one is perfect. The mainstream politicians mostly lead private lives of astonishing squalidness. And the only alternative to autocracy in a political party is rule by monomaniacs with a partiality to five hour committee meetings. Mr Farage tyrannises over UKIP, and good luck to him in my view. Certainly, the claims have failed. They are given wall to wall coverage in the mainstream media. The talking heads solemnly assure each other that Mr Farage will struggle to survive. Hardly anyone pays attention. UKIP remains on target to win the European elections. Wherever he goes, Mr Farage draws bigger crowds than the Prime Minister.

One further criticism is worth dealing with in the current forum. This is that UKIP and Mr Farage are not sufficiently nationalist. My simple answer is that I like economic liberalism and middle class patriotism. But UKIP has occupied nearly the whole ground vacated by the British National Party since its implosion; and, if opposed to mass-immigration, it has no interest in doing business with the European nationalist parties. My longer answer is that the defeat of political correctness is the first step to overthrowing the present order of things. After that, we can argue about what comes next. For this, UKIP is a more powerful opposition movement than the BNP ever was. Economic liberalism and civic nationalism are the default prejudices of the English mind. For all it tries to reach out to these, the BNP has always been an exotic import in terms of ideology. For all they have tried to live down their past – for all, perhaps, they have rejected it – the leaders may be too compromised by what they said and did before about 2000. UKIP has no inconvenient baggage. And, if pan-nationalism is to have any meaning, it must surely allow every people to express its nationality in its own way. The French and Germans must have their national statism. America must have its constitutional purism behind trade barriers. Let us have our warmed-over Victorian liberalism. We shall see which brings about the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

In closing, UKIP is the main rising force in British politics. It thrives on open debate. Smearing it is dismissed at the Plan B strategy of a political class too worthless and  too discredited to survive in an honest marketplace of ideas. This may be advance notice of a political earthquake. It may be part of a longer process of dissolution. It is, undeniably, a step in the right direction.

Sean Gabb’s novel, The Break, comes out in e-book on the 2nd June 2014. You can read the first 20 per cent for free.



  • I really don’t see why that second paragraph of eugenics piffle is in the article at all. I was particularly amused by the idea that our current establishment class is characterised by innate superior ability. Most of them would be beggars and vagabonds in a free market.

    • They’re not, Ian. The establishment class is composed of individuals, such as professional politicians, who are:-
      (1) Energetic
      (2) Very very (very) outgoing
      (3) Very glib and spry with words and phrases like “let me be absolutely clear”
      (4) Probably fairly articulate in general
      (5) Enthusiastic (about all sorts of televisable stuff)

      And totally unsuited to any kind of proper work whatsoever.

      • On a serious note, Mr Davis, I totally agree with Ian B. Sure, the eugenicists who invented “family planning” wanted to reduce the numbers of people with certain traits. The truly mad Marie Stopes, when not sending adoring poetry to Hitler, was concentrating her “clinics” in poorer areas and advocating the sterilisation of various people from drunkards to simply those of bad character.

        The more that “family planning” has become accepted and practised the worse our country has become. The more that contraception and abortion are promoted to young people (and actually aided by schools and ‘charities’), the more promiscuous they have become, making it more difficult for them to settle down to family life when older.

        This has had the effect of producing many single-parent families and the mind control which has produced much smaller families has left us and many Western countries with dangerously low fertility rates, far short of replacement levels. The population of Japan is forecast to drop by a quarter in the next few decades such is the low birth rate, which means mass immigration will be necessary to make up for the aging population.

        Strong families are the basic building block of any strong society and ours have been under attack for many decades now and this is the main reason the whole of society is crumbling.

        There is the old premise that you can judge a society by the way it treats its weakest. With over six million abortions, old people and the sick left neglected, people denied health treatment because of their ‘lifestyle’, children deliberately dumbed down at school and through the media in an attempt to produce a generation of compliant drones, you can see how the weak are abused.

        Eugenics in any form is surely not what any libertarian should be espousing, never mind any decent human being. This ‘science’ has a cold, callous disregard for humanity and the freedom and safety of the vulnerable.

  • The European Union is not the “free trade club” that liars (such a the Economist magazine) pretend it is. That was EFTA – the European Free Trade Association.

    Nor is the E.U. really about deterring war – that is NATO (based, in part, upon the United States armed forces – and, therefore, hated by both Black Flag Fascists and Red Flag Marxists).

    The European Economic Community (as the E.U. was then called) was set up in the 1950s to be an additional layer of government – one that (over a long period of time) would grow into the most important lawyer, The old dream of a de facto “United Europe” (the aim of so many rulers down the centuries).

    Even if the E.U. was “just” an additional layer of government pro liberty people would still be against it, but sadly the hopes of its founders have proved to be true, – it has grown into a very important lawyer of government with something like 80% of new regulations coming from the E.U.

    This is not an accident – it was hoped for from the start and many important people have devoted their entire lives to ensuring the growth in power of the EU.

    The idea that the once a power has been given to “Europe” it can never be returned is central to the enterprise – it is Progressive in the same way some diseases are.

    This is something that would-be “reformers” should note.

    I remain convinced that the only logical policy is for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (and all other nations) to leave the E.U.

    As for UKIP – well we see how they have done in about a week.

    Other political parties must then make a choice (on the basis of how many votes UKIP gets), whether people will be convinced by promises of the “reform” of the E.U. – or whether a more fundamental policy (a policy of leaving the E.U.) is required.

    I believe it is required.

  • Judging by the almost daily smears in the MSM, Ukip must be doing a pretty good job of getting on the ruling class’s nerves.

    • Yup.

      I began to warn them about sleepers a little time ago. But really you have to see that they were at that time so glad to see anyone, that they probably didn’t check very well.

      And a good sleeper is one you can’t detect until it detonates.

      This is why I will need to be Sean’s War Secretary.

  • Thought the same thing to be honest.

    After all it is a bit odd that she apparently managed to defend the party on Channel 4 news a few days earlier, yet today she suddenly finds them “terrifying”.

    Very odd.

    • She’s a plant, Peter. I bet you 1p.

      As War Secretary, if I’d been that for any of the LibLabConPartiNazis, I’d have planted someone exactly like her about three years ago, when she was, oh, I’d say about 17 or 18. The LsE bit was an even cleverer cover, for that’s a Gramscian outfit through and through..

      That other woman, Alexandra Swann, a “defecting Tory” also made me a bit suspicious.

      She was astonishingly pretty I thought, I’d have married her in a heartbeat if I was 35 years younger and single, and Nigel is partial to pretty young women as is any proper non-leftoid “tron/troid” minimal-statist-fella. So of course, as a sleeper, she was a shoe-in.

      You’d never have got the Grestapo in WW2 falling for stuff like that. They were far more suspicious than even me, which is why they lasted so long against nearly 2 million tons of TNT.

  • Agree with you Sean, excellent piece and re posted onto Libertarian Party UK Facebook page. Excellent article!

    • Thanks

    • Thanks, that is v kind of you.

  • Enoch's Eyebrow

    Here’s a good example of why libertarians should oppose the EU:

    European Welsh Congress Calls on EU to Set Up State Surveillance of “Intolerant” Citizens

    Posted by TNO Staff— on November 9, 2013

    In a move described by a leading civil rights group as a “dark day for European democracy,” Dafydd ap Jones, President of the European Welsh Congress (ECW) and former president of Poland, Aleksander Kwasniewski (real name Cadwallader), have called on the European Union to establish national surveillance units to monitor citizens of all 27 EU member states suspected of “intolerance.”

    The two EWC leaders made the call at a “European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation” (ECTR) submission to the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE).

    These “special administrative units,” the report says, “should preferably operate within the Ministry of Justice.”

    “There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant,” it states, especially “as far as freedom of expression is concerned.”

    European Welsh Congress Calls on EU to Set Up State Surveillance of “Intolerant” Citizens

  • In what sort of alternate reality is the UK either rich of powerful ? It barely survived a war with… Argentina. And that was under Thatcher. It would not fare as well today.

    • Pardon me, but we went through the Argies like a hot knife through butter. And, if we aren’t wealthy, why has about half the population of your country moved here since January?

    • The Argentines had several lucky breaks in the Falklands War.

      (0) They were initially up against a British administration – at least at ministerial level – that was trying surreptitiously to “lose” the Falklands in any way it could, without anybody noticing if at all possible. The middle of a serious Labour-orchetsrated-recession in 1982 would have been a good time to bury bad news about a “overseas dependency”, and the Tory Scumbags know it and acted on that.
      But the Argentines rightly (for them) “took the shot” at what seemed the right time. (Sadly for them they misjudged the PM and the mood of the British People, which she understood, being one herself unlike the Tory Scumbags that surrounded her and wanted her dead asap. and which fortunately prevailed against them…for a time.)

      (1) They managed to catch HMS Coventry with a French missile, to which we had not previously been able to get the disabling-codes. Their flyers were indeed quite brave to attempt a long, low-level sea crossing to hit it, but at that point we still had not got the Fleet Air Arm close enough to stop them. They “took the shot” and succeeded.

      (2) They managed to sink “Atlantic Conveyor”, carrying most of our heavy-lift helicopters for artillery-movement over functionaly-unpassable terrain. (The result of course was that they merely prolonged the period between our initial assault and their inevitable surrender.)

      (3) They did manage to ambush the Guards on Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram, which was very unfortunate for the Guards, and very lucky for the Argentine Air Force.

  • Concerned Briton

    Regarding being rich and powerful, I suspect the comment maker above is relating to the notion that we are in excess of being £1 trillion in debt (closer to £5 trillion when all other personal liabilities are factored in) and that our army and navy etc are being hollowed out to such a degree that we may risk not being able to blow the skin off a rice pudding.

    I think we are ‘wealthy’, or have the illusion of wealth, because as a nation we borrow from fractional reserve banking systems and have everything on “the never never”.

    Our real wealth seems to have been asset stripped by various past governments and sold off to the highest bidders. Water, Energy, Transport, Prison services, Social Housing, key companies to EDF, Serco, Kraft, etc, not to mention land, shopping precincts, landmark buildings, ports, and so on.

    I would be surprised if the British even own half of our own country or half of our own national structure.

    Our “leaders” still parade around the world like we own the place, or that we are powerful and influential, but I think they are deluding themselves – and like with the money and infrastructure, we are often living off a memory and off past greatness.

  • The ruling class are the ruling class because they’re the ruling class…
    “Relatives of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom David Cameron include members of the royal family and individuals who pursued careers in politics and finance.”

  • John Pate – and Prime Minister John Major was also born with a silver spoon in his mouth?

    I could go for hours about all the problems I have with Mr Cameron – but his coming from wealthy family is not one of them.

    Leave B.S. talk of a “ruling class” to the Communists

    Concerned Briton

    You seem to think that state ownership means you (as part of the people) own X, Y, Z. – you are mistaken.

    “Russia Today” may tell you that when a state owned enterprise is sold you are being robbed of your wealth – but they are not telling the truth (as state ownership does NOT mean you own it).

    The last two comments have reminded me that “Brown” (or “National”) socialism is no better than the Red variety of socialism.

    Indeed a lot of stuff from the BNP (for example their youth wing) is incredibly similar to the “Occupy” Reds.

  • Of course Argentina (which David refers to) is a classic example of the mixing of “Red” and “Brown” forms of socialism. The Peronist movement (including the present government of Argentina) is a baffling mixture of both.

  • Concerned Briton

    When I speak of ownership, I am not necessarily suggesting that I (or individuals) own it.

    I am suggesting that they are national assets that ought to be working, at least part, for the benefit of the national people and, in the cases of energy and so on, provide us with some degree of self sufficiency as a nation so that we are more self reliant and not so able to be held hostage.

    I am a nationalist, yes a cursed “national socialist” in some ways (but not others) – so when I speak of the collective “we” and “nation”, I am primarily talking about British people, from which the real meaning of word ‘nation’ derives.

    It is in this way when I mean ‘good for our people’ and ‘good for our nation’ both now and for the future. And why should this not be the case? Why should I be prepared to put up with situations that deplete the standing and future of the British people and the country in which we reside?

    I do not find it good that ‘we’, the collective British, no longer run any of our own ports. I no longer find it good that we have sold much of our other key infrastructures off. I do not find it good that Arabs or the Chinese own vast swathes of English land in the form of massive shopping precincts, houses, landmarks.

    I no longer find it good that foreign companies own energy and water companies, that multinationals like Starbucks and Amazon (and many more) suck out the cream of the profit out of the country instead of it being put back in to the country again as it should be, being invested in our future and future generations.

    Why should I even be happy when British shops and brands like Boots are sold off, for example?

    Boots the chemist was sold to the Italian pharmacy king Stefano Pessina and private-equity barons KKR in 2007 for £12 billion. Soon after the takeover, Boots – which had been based in Nottingham for 161 years – moved its headquarters to Zug in Switzerland.

    Before the takeover, Boots had paid £89 million in British tax in its final year as a quoted company on the London stock market. Now that it pays its tax in Zug, that figure has shrunk to just £9 million!

    Whilst the “political classes” at the time crowed about the boost to the economy and the attraction of British companies etc, they were actually costing the economy of this country £80million per year making us all poorer for it.

    How is that good for this country, or the people who reside in it?

    What about the loss of I.C.I? – Taking with it scientific and industrial expertise built up over many decades.

    Within days of the buyout, the new owners were stripping some of ICI’s assets, such as its adhesives and electronic materials activities – which were sold to a German competitor. Several British factories were closed, eliminating 3,500 jobs and placing a pay freeze on most of the rest of the company’s employees.

    All companies are out to make a profit, but foreign companies are out to make fat profits as speedily as possible and they’re not as concerned as a British company would be about public opinion, for they owe no particular allegiance to this country and leave us, the ordinary people, with little we can do about it.

    Take Scottish Power as an example, which I believe is still owned by Spanish firm Iberdrola.

    After a series of price increases a few years ago, it announced its customers would have to pay yet more for their gas. Scottish consumers were rightly furious because in five years their energy bills had risen by an average of 40%.

    Just weeks after the latest hike, it emerged that “Scottish Power” had piled up such vast profits that it had made an £800 million loan to a sister company in the U.S, somewhere where they are unable to pull the same kinds of stunts.

    A utility company with an “international” (Globalist) reach like this can transfer profits from one part of the world to another rather than reinvest them in infrastructure, service and lower prices in the host country.

    Why should I, as a nationalist, with the interests of my own people at heart, find this kind of globalism to be good? Globalism and global finance is in my view a race to the bottom and one that destroys all things in its path to get there.

    One great company after another has been auctioned off as part of this asset stripping that is costing us all money in the long term – including Jaguar Rover (to India), Asda (to the U.S.), MG Rover (to China), P&O Ports (to Dubai), the British Airports Authority (to Spain), Corus (formerly British Steel, to India), British Energy (to France), and lottery operator Camelot (to Canada).

    When people come to Britain for tourism and a “British experience”, they get off their plane at airports owned by the Spanish. They then enter the capital city of England which is no longer majority English!

    They might board a sight-seeing double decker red bus that is actually owned by a German company. They may stop off and visit Selfridges, Fortnum & Mason and the Savoy…..which are all owned by Canadians…or pop into Harrods, which has been bought by a firm based in Qatar, or go along along to the Dorchester by one based in Brunei.

    Many other nations are not being this silly, they do more to protect their own assets.

    So yes, when “state” assets are sold off, particularly abroad, I think they DO harm the future of this country, the British people and the infrastructure – and I DO think that we are being “robbed”, both in monetary terms of hiked prices, in terms of degraded services (see Thames Water!) and in terms of lost skills and jobs.

    I am not sure where I stand on monetary systems, but I suspect I may lean more towards Distributism and the much touted “John Lewis” worker-owned shares models that mean those workers are not likely to see themselves vote to be replaced by immigrant labour, and, in theory, provides incentives for them to work harder and make the company a success for their mutual benefit.

    I see no reason as to why this is not a bad idea for the wider nation as a whole, for us to have stakes in essential services/assets, stakes in our own companies, so that we are incentivised into making ourselves a success and reaping the reward for it, rather than it all being sucked away up the pyramid of power into the hands of the very few – and hands of globalist faces whom we cannot challenge or “vote out”.

    If that makes me a national socialist, to care for my nation (at the exclusivity of others) and to look out for the welfare of my own people in terms of their health, working rights, and future, etc then so be it. I am more than happy to be one.

    Of course, you are right that the BNP is a left-wing party just as much as it is a right-wing one.

    That is what makes it potentially so attractive to many people, because it is supposed to be positioned for the good of the people, for the nation (ie a bulwark against globalism of all kinds), is a little more protectionist when it comes to key things like energy supplies and water supplies, yet it is simultaneously “right wing” when it comes to crime and punishment, ‘morality’ (traditional family values and national tradition, meritocracy, patriarchy) and so on.

    So when Russia Today, or whoever else, gently mocks the British nation for stripping itself bare and turning into a Globalist “Air Strip One” landing pad, whilst propping up the coffers of international finance and making the ordinary British public worse off for the future by actually paying for their own long term demise, I suppose I would tend to agree with them.

    • Pretty soon, just about every product and service will be provided by global oligopolies who’ll have the power shift prices as they will. It will make people nostalgic for the shambolic nationalised industries of the 1970s.

  • Concerned Briton – repeating your errors does not stop them being errors. Nor does mixing your errors with TRUE statements (such as that it is a terrible thing that British manufacturing has so declined) stop them being errors.

    Instead of attacking Zug – why not try to be more like Zug?

    Switzerland was not always richer than Britain – it became richer (especially low tax Cantons like Zug) because it followed a policy of SMALLER GOVERNMENT (both in terms of tax-and-spend and regulations)

    Switzerland did not always have a smaller government – but the British government expanded and the Swiss government (especially in placed such as Zug) did not expand so much

    But instead of suggesting that the British government cut taxes and spending and get rid of regulations (in order to encourage business enterprises to stay here – and to grow here) you just go off on a rant – attacking business in general.

    Thus showing (yet again) that there is little practical difference between “Brown” socialism (Fascism – as with the BNP) and “Red” socialism.

    As for Volkish ideas in general – they have nothing (naught) to do with British patriotism.

    Indeed some of the supporters of these ideas (such as the “Right Club” during the 1930s) ended up really “selling out the nation” to Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan – handing over military secrets that led to such things as the fall of Singapore in the 1942.

    Real British patriots (such as Edmund Burke, Gladstone, Winston Churchill, or Mrs Thatcher) have nothing to do with volkish ideas – indeed oppose them.


    Where is your evidence that general prices are (or soon will be) set by evil cabals of businessmen (no doubt with names such as Mr Cohen – I have noticed all the attacks on Tesco on this site) rather than by supply and demand (by competition and innovation)?

    If you want to attack inflation – and the Central Bank credit-money supply expansion that YES tends to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor then I AGREE with you.

    But spare me the conspiracy theories about cabals of evil capitalists setting the prices of everything.

    • Concerned Briton

      Mr Marks, what I had written was not a “rant”.

      It was an opinion, a calm explanation of how I see things to be – and a clarification over how I differ with your implied accusation that I somehow thought I ‘owned’ state controlled services.

      Just because you do not like my positions as a self described ‘nationalist’ does not mean I am always “ranting”. If anything, it is yourself who is always ranting – and shouting in capitals – at others in what often appears to be a lecturing and sneering tone.

      Nothing I said about the matter has been proven wrong either, I notice, other than where we differ over definition of ownership, to which I explained my view – and in that you somehow manage to suggest that I am attacking “all business” – whereas I am in fact attacking globalist aspects of it.

      This is something which I obviously would do, seeing as am a nationalist and interested in the welfare and future of my “folk” in their own ancestral homeland.

      Nationalism is, in my opinion, the only bulwark, the only force against the march of international socialism and globalism, which are hand in hand and fuelling each other’s agendas to a common end result. That is why it gets such a hard time and (near hysterical) coverage that is not afforded far worse concepts.

      Attacking the mechanics, the ‘end resultant of’ and the general unaccountability of globalism is not attacking “all business”, is it?

      It is attacking the wicked nature of the process, a process which you seem perfectly happy to support and be a part of in the name of some “free market” ideal that is a far cry from what we actually have going on.

      If you want to support that, it is your own business, but do not question or imply negative connotations towards my morality and positions when it perhaps ought to be you questioning yours if you are happy to go along with these globalist routes and ideologies and the devastation it brings.

      Talking of “definitions”, you should know that being patriotic is not the same thing at all as being a nationalist, so you are cross purposes in your remarks about the British National Party and others when it comes to ‘the likes’ of myself.

      If you cannot discern the difference between patriotism and nationalism, then I cannot really help you, but don’t try and lay out canards or straw-men by building up some notion that I am a patriot and then knocking me down for not being one.

      I do not support the actions of the state because it is “my country, right or wrong”, nor do I blindly back the organs and institutions of the state and what props up their socio-political hegemony that allows them to carry on damaging this country and the indigenous populations.

      Being a “patriot” does not mean having to fawn over Winston Churchill, believe the one sided narrative over past war escapades and excuse every bad decision and move the ruling elites have done in our collective name.

      When it comes to what patriotism I do have, it is for the “volk”, the nature of our ways, our endeavours, our advancements, our pasts and our futures. I am not proud of my country now, or in recent history – and if things continue on as they are doing, I doubt I will be proud of the future. What is there to be patriotic of?

      Like I say, and have always said, I am a nationalist and “volk” has therefore everything to do with things. If there is no future for my own kind in my own land, then why on Earth should I care about how those who come after us and replace us arrange their affairs?!

      Even amoebas understand this point and the nature of survival. So, when there are no living descendants of my own people left, it is “game over” by then as far as I am concerned.

      They can do whatever they like and look after their affairs however they please. They will do this anyway, regardless of what we do and regardless of what our national history has been.

      To think they are going to continue any sort of libertarian society is laughable to me. But that is the problem with some libertarians, they absolutely refuse to acknowledge the real world of group dynamics and the state things are in out there; and instead opt for the imaginary world of individualism and interchangeable robots (just like the ‘open borders’ brigade amongst the ranks).

      Although I know you are confusing the matter of nationalist and patriot, it is rather funny to me how you cite Churchill and Margaret Thatcher as not being in any way “volkish” (and indeed “opposed them”), when both of these individuals had form and are on record for wanting to try and protect the racial integrity of Britain and put the interests of white people first in their own homeland.

      By the way, with all your besmirching of “red” and “brown” socialism in relation to me – Just because I oppose the machine of globalism and all it brings, does not automatically equate that I desire ‘big government’ and aggressive socialism/socialist programmes.

      Yes, I think that we should be a little more protectionist with vital sectors and key sectors, but that does not mean to say I want the “state” to either run our lives or stick their bibs into every aspect of our lives like they do today!

      That is one of the reasons I visit – and am interested in – libertarian aspects of freedom and liberty. I just happen to not be as far ranging in those beliefs, such as where I feel it damages the collective interests of the survival of my race and nation.

      You may well not like that position, but that does not make me a “bad person” and nor does it make me “against” other races, religions or cultures in this world. Nor does it make me an opponent of this site or a great many a libertarian position when it comes to banishing this kind of nannying that drives us all to distraction.

      Picking up your argument with Rob for a moment, are you honestly suggesting that cabals of businessmen are NOT setting prices?!

      You seem to be suggesting Rob is some conspiracy theorist – but are you aware of what he might be suggesting and how the prices of many things are already being manipulated and “set”?

      Does LIBOR rigging ring any bells, FOREX, or the further proven manipulation of oil, gold and silver markets?

      These have impact on all sorts of prices of goods, but it does not have to be so high up the chain – it could be banks, companies, brands, who are increasingly getting deeply integrated into one another.

      There have been many cases of price manipulation by “cabals of businessmen”, going back decades and up to recent history.

      Roche vitamins for example, General Electric and Westinghouse for another, how about the majority of “British” supermarkets caught manipulating the prices of milk and cheese to the tune of £270million?

      In 2007, the European Commission discovered a price-fixing scheme among the makers of flat glass. It was found that in 2004 and 2005, four major makers of flat glass — Asahi, Guardian, Pilkington, and Saint-Gobain — secretly met to discuss artificially raising their prices, which they did, to the tune of £millions.

      In 2004, British Airways airline entered into secret talks with its rival Virgin Atlantic to simultaneously bump up their fuel surcharges, a practice that continued into 2006.

      Over the course of the collusion, it was found that fuel surcharges had risen from an average of 5 pounds a ticket to over 60 pounds a fare. It was only because their rivals in America blew the whistle on it that it came to light.

      But what if there was ever fewer of these rivals to blow whistles?

      Thanks to globalism, you see, more and more supposed independent brands – giving us all the illusion of choice – are forever getting into fewer and fewer hands, thanks to being “sold off” in the way you seem to support as part of this “global free market”.

      For example, ten corporations own almost every brand we buy. The likes of Nestle, Proctor and Gamble, Unilever, and so on….. Many thousands of household names are ultimately under the same 10 owners.

      This is happening all over the world and converging all over the world. It is a proven fact, not a “conspiracy theory” (before you start with that!).

      Yes, it may be a conspiracy theory that they are colluding all the time with each other to fix prices, I would tend to agree.

      But it is not that wacky to believe that the potential is there, or that when somebody like Unilever has dominance over several (seemingly independent) washing powder companies, for example, that they might all happen to get sold within the same kinds of price range…not least via supermarkets that themselves collude!

      They don’t necessarily have to collude with others in secret meetings, as they are getting to be a rule unto themselves. They often are ‘the competition’.

      Nor does it stop with brands and products.

      In 1983, 90% of the media was owned by 50 different companies. Now, that same 90% is owned by SIX different companies. There are more channels than ever before, but not necessarily more viewpoints, positions or types of output.

      Again, taking America as an example, 37 independent banks have now become under the banner of 4 owners in the last 20 years. (CitiGroup, JP Morgan and Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo).

      Here in Britain, we have seen banks buying each other up, Abbey National, Egg, Alliance and Leicester and so on all being sucked into the same banners, with the likes of Santander and whoever ultimately may own that…..

      So when you talk of “competition and innovation” – and berate Rob for having the nerve to suggest that “cabals of businessmen” may be artificially controlling the markets in the future – maybe you might want to show him where this great competition really is these-days, and tell him why it is so far-fetched to believe that such rigging can be done – when it already shown to be being done….

      Look, I am not saying either way. I am not saying I am right, or that I am wrong. I am just explaining a point of view, as always.

      I am not here to argue Robs corner, but given your condescending and patronising attitude to Rob, with the whole “spare me” jibes (given in the usual lecturing ‘know it all’ tone you seem to give out), I thought I would throw my hand in the ring to see where he *might* be coming from.

      I will let Rob come back to you that, if he ever returns. I can’t be bothered bogging myself down into it, especially with somebody who often appears to refuse to even consider another’s point of view and often misses the point being made by a country mile via seeing everything though a particular pair of blinkers.

      No doubt you will come back with something. Maybe if you actually explained yourself better instead of sounding like a lecturing filofax, people may appreciate what you are saying instead of just getting their backs up.

  • Reblogged this on Citizens, not serfs.

  • Sean,
    Actually UKIP in the Sked years had quite sensible policies in outline for most areas. I haven’t kept the papers but remember thinking that the one on agriculture was pretty sensible. I worked in the grain and feed trade.

    There was not much doubt that HM Spooks played a part in several of the convulsions which wracked the party in the late Nineties/early Noughties . Norman Tebbit certainly thought so.

  • Concerned Briton.

    A business (i.e. something selling a good or service) is not a “national asset” – alt least not in any collectivist sense. And it should not be run “for the benefit of the people” – it should be run for the profit of the shareholders (who certainly should not be the government).

    Nor are volkish thinkers (i.e. those who argue that business enterprises should be run or the “benefit of the people”) such as Fichte or Frederick List examples of British patriots.

  • Stewart Cowen.

    On eugenics – yes agreed.

    And this Fabian (and Progressive) thing was transformed in the 1960s into the (state backed) “liberation” movement, but still really pushing the same anti traditional family stuff that H.G. Wells and co had pushed.

    The West (including nations such as Japan, Taiwan and South Korea – so it is not a racial thing) does indeed face a terrible threat.

  • Edward Spalton – yes elements of the security services have been used against UKIP in the past (it was common knowledge – even the BBC made a play of it, the episode of “Spooks” where an anti E.U. politicians is smeared as a racist when he is NOT).

    However, other people in the security services do not approve of this – not because they support UKIP (although some do), but because they do not believe that this is a correct use of the security services.

    It is fashionable to believe that people in the security services have no ethical code – that is not always true.

  • A very good article, Sean, and which has now been vindicated with UKIP’s victory in the Euro-elections.

    As I opined at The Kitchen recently, however, my belief is that UKIP has changed its messaging (although not its core values) to expand its influence from angered Conservatives—and it has done so in order to make inroads into the Labour Party’s traditional heartlands.

    “Every UKIP activist I know started in the Conservative Party.”

    I did not.


    • Thanks for telling me my mistake

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s