by Mike Newland
UKIP is at last unveiling its long-awaited policies – which for a very long time have amounted to what appeared to be Nigel Farage contriving them on the hoof.
The complacent three big parties thought that UKIP had reached its high water mark and would now be in decline as a force. Instead it continues to make astonishing headway despite every effort by the media to kill it either by smear campaign or by simply ignoring it.
It is now quite possible that UKIP may genuinely wield significant influence after the general election and perhaps even hold some genuine power in the event of a hung parliament.
Like the above as a positive development or lump it as an ersatz nationalism designed to trap the votes of the unwary we are where we are and must consider our futures.
There is really only one question which counts for the British people now. Are we to retain our country as a homeland or not? Every other concern fades into inconsequence or is a part of it.
With all the enthusiasm and flag waving by supporters of UKIP one might have supposed that it offered a clear answer to that great question. UKIP is heart and soul committed to our retention of our birthright in these islands.
Unfortunately it does not – at least on the basis of its public statements.
This is what UKIP’s Steven Woolfe had to say this week about the party’s immigration policy at its conference.
‘Firstly, we believe all people from whichever country they come from should be treated the same if they wish to come to our country. Secondly, we will not allow the British state to discriminate by region, origin or ethnicity.’
Does that sound fair? Will it sound fair to voters? Is it fair?
Superficially the above appears unexceptional. In reality it is a dagger in our hearts. It means that a native son (a John Newland fought at Agincourt) has no special place whatsoever in this country greater than someone who has just arrived and shares almost nothing in common with us. What it actually means is that UKIP does not recognise the very idea of a homeland. Try that concept out on the Chinese, Japanese or Indians!
Those carried aloft on the wave of euphoria which UKIP is currently enjoying will brush such concerns aside as the response of jealous outsiders attempting to pick holes. Some will say that the party is simply engaged in some clever positioning in an attempt to avoid provoking the likes of the BBC. But since parties tend to weaken their radicalism if they obtain any power we can rightly take the pessimistic side.
Not long ago we were likewise told that David Cameron was a true conservative at heart and that this would make itself known as soon as he took power.
For many years, the political system tried to silence debate about immigration completely. Now that defensive position has proved to be no longer holdable it has built a new defensive wall within which it’s taboo to consider the British to be a people let alone conceding to us that a people needs a homeland to sustain it.
The concept of ‘homeland’ is now essentially taboo in British politics and UKIP has accepted it.
Here is the great gulf between ourselves as nationalists and the likes of UKIP. We recognise the existence of peoples and say that all have a right to their own space in the world. That is why we are neither racists nor supremacists in any proper use of words.
UKIP’s concept of the country amounts in essence to its being a business park. UKIP’s immigration policy dictates that those most economically useful should be admitted regardless of whether they share our identity in any way. It’s not explained why we should admit anyone at all on such a basis saving perhaps a handful of people. Why are we not training and employing our own?
That Britain should not offer any preference to our cousins from across the Channel over say those from Africa or Asia is also UKIP‘s policy. So much for a European homeland let alone a British one!
Let’s consider now what UKIP’s Peter Whittle has to say about the admitted disaster of multiculturalism.
‘In some areas multiculturalism has led paradoxically to a series of monocultures which do not mix.’
How exactly does Mr Whittle propose to alter that position unless by ignoring the principle his own party has espoused that all are equal and must not be treated in any way differently? People have a perfect right to pursue a monoculture in isolation if they wish and any attempt to divert them from it must be discriminatory according to UKIP‘s own lights.
They can’t have it both ways but appear to be trying to do so in order to please both their own supporters and to appease their enemies. But the very appeal of UKIP in the first place was that it was not yet another all things to all men political artifice like the three big parties.
You cannot have a homeland unless you accept the principle of a predominant culture and people. That is the nettle UKIP will not grasp.
Britain is in far greater peril now than in the 1940s. Let’s imagine UKIP’s Mr Woolfe as Winston reborn inspiring the nation.
“We will fight on the beaches and in the hills for those future sunlit uplands where our own people have no special place in these islands as their homeland.”
If UKIP gets any power and its immigration policy is implemented people will quickly discover that the 50,000 immigrants a year quoted as headline policy actually means probably 300,000 immigrants a year. The 50,000 is merely the difference between the numbers of those going out and those coming in.
A sensible policy would be 50,000 new migrants in total. If that in view of the size of Britain and its population density.
The population replacement policy continues.