Dissident Congress website

Redefining the Right

By Russell White

As Britain continues its forlorn journey into the 21st Century it is increasingly important that there is a traditionalist force in politics worthy of taking on the "progressives" who wish to speed up the pace of change. We, of course, wish that force to be the Populists, but we have to explain why we are more logical and long term alternatives to our rivals in other groups.

We Populists have to redefine what it means to be on the "right". Currently the Right can either be "Nationalist" (BNP), "Eurosceptic" (UKIP), or until recently, "Capitalist" (Tory). When Tony Blair's New Labour project stole Tory economic policies, Capitalism ceased to be the ideology of the Right (was it ever?). Suddenly it became fashionable to support "markets" and "competition" amongst previous socialists, which was the best thing to happen to British politics, for at least we no longer have parties in parliament which profess to stand for the "workers". This leaves a vacuum waiting to be filled. Now all three main parties support the aspirations of the well-to-do politically correct graduate class in metropolitan areas, the new elite, as they should be known. The elite has largely usurped the "establishment" of old, who were largely drawn from the shires, read the Telegraph, and ran the empire. This means that a huge swathe of people in both the middle and working classes are left without any say - they are disenfranchised. Opinion has become less polarised with the advent of political correctness, so that all parliamentary parties have an agreement on what cannot be said. Free speech is at the minimum point it can reach in a democracy partly because our representatives and public figures immediately apologise for causing offence to this or that minority group. Every climbdown is a victory for political correctness and authoritarian liberalism. Therefore the first step is to emphasise the fact that we Populists say what we mean and mean what we say. The craziest aspect of PC is that every famous person who says something "inappropriate" (sexist / racist / homophobic or whatever) and then apologises must have been thinking a certain way in the first place in order to make the supposed "gaffe", so the apology is meaningless unless they suffer from a weird variation of Tourette's syndrome which causes its victims to utter politically incorrect sentences against their will! No doubt some bright spark will ask me to apologise to Tourette's sufferers...

The apology is aimed at retaining their careers in order to avoid being blacklisted / deselected as an MP. Recent examples include Tory MP Ann Winterton's joke about the drowned Chinese cockle pickers, and her colleague Boris Johnson who was sent to Liverpool by his own party leader Michael Howard following comments about the grief in that city following the death of executed hostage Ken Bigley. Those comments, about the nature of public grieving in modern Britain, echo those made by right-wingers following the death of Princess Diana, but he still had to visit Liverpool. Next time he may end up being sent to Coventry, not Liverpool...

In the 1950s US Senator McCarthy drew up blacklists of Communists and was cited as an example of "right-wing" intolerance. Today's blacklisting is the equivalent of what society circles used to call "social suicide" or "not the done thing". The effect is the same - instant oblivion. My pledge is that a Populist representative would never be permitted to succumb to such moral blackmail by the politically correct lobby, to not grovel, and to stand by his or her words.


With the accession of ten new member states into the European Union our emphasis as Euro-Realists must change from a British-based opposition to a Europe-wide attack upon the EU as an institution. Our literature is ahead of our rivals in this respect. Eurosceptics who believe we can leave the EU and stay out when the entire continent is drawn in further are misguided. We may be able to survive on our own, but the political pressure from pro-EU elements will convince fainthearts that we cannot.

Therefore the EU itself needs to be destroyed and it is no longer enough to simply call for British withdrawal, and proclaim that "we don't care what other member states do". As long as the EU exists it provides a focal point for supporters of global government, as the Soviet Union did for the communists. Most importantly it will provide funding for federalist groups, even if we are out of the EU. We remain neutralists, but on this issue there remains a fundamental threat to our national sovereignty.

Therefore, in future the Populist Party will call for abolition of the European Union, rather than just British withdrawal. This represents a toughening up of policy more in line with our blueprint for the futurePopulist Principles, which professes support for the preservation of nations, peoples, and cultures worldwide...

But that doesn't mean we are "anti-European". In many ways the Europeans do things better than us - from the treatment of pensioners to public transport, the environment to "family friendly" facilities. We have much to learn from the people of Europe, far more than from North America, which is developing as the nemesis of Populism, and bastion of the market-mad modernism we so oppose.

Where we share common ground with the "States" such as our imperial measurements and of course our language, we can feel some affinity, but the economic and welfare system should resemble more closely a European model, rather than an American one. It should be based on shared community and kinship, rather than dog-eat-dog I'm all right jack selfishness.

The French still have their film industry, have resisted Anglicisation of their language, and still enjoy numerous small shops, such as traditional bakers, butchers, and confectioners. The chain stores are less obvious than here. Perhaps some of the animosity towards the French in modern day Britain is based less upon wars fought many years ago, and more to do with jealousy over their willingness to give their workers a fair deal and resolution in keeping asylum seekers out of France (by sending them to a country that won't send them back - namely Britain). More and more English people are giving up on their homeland to emigrate to France. Shouldn't this tell us something?

Race and population

On race relations, our policy of all races uniting behind Britain may seem bizarre to some nationalists, not least some of the BNP and English Nationalists of varying hues, but it is purely common sense to not make enemies where one does not need to. Jean-Marie Le Pen and his Front National in France has shown there is only one way forward on this key strategy issue. Let's never forget that there are individuals of non-European origin who support 90% of our policies, and Britons (Tony Blair?) who would oppose 90% of what we say. The enemy is an ideological one, not an ethnic one. The biggest enemies of Populism are invariably not black or Asian.

We would not, however make a concerted push for ethnic recruits as the old parties have, but neither do we automatically reject them. A serious mass movement should aim to enlist as many like-minded people as possible without diluting its principles. We should speak freely, and take as we find. Any members, be they ethnically British or not, who have trouble with this should find another political home. Part of what makes the Tories seem so pathetic at the beginning of the 21st Century is their desperation to appear modern and multicultural, to bend over backwards to show black faces in the front row at conferences when we know that they are the only ones there. UKIP seem to be heading along the same route.


The Populist emphasis on opposing globalisation sets us apart from most other patriotic dissident groups. Whilst they oppose the EU for curtailing what is seen as the traditional global vision of Great Britain we recognise the EU as the main instrument of globalisation and probable world government. The EU expands every few years and is accompanied by a corresponding change of name. Only when the EU has gobbled up the statehood of every European nation will it then turn to Asia and North Africa and become something like G.U. (Global Union) or perhaps the Orwellian Eurasia!

It was pitiful to see so-called Eurosceptics hail the accession of ten new member states in May 2004 as a brake upon the Federalist agenda. It was nothing of the kind. Such naivity has been a constant theme of the Tories who wish to be "in Europe but not run by it". The new countries are sacrificing their hard earned independence to gain a slice of the rich pickings available to poorer countries in the form of handouts and regional development schemes. The globalists have a cynical perception of human nature. Perhaps their slogans (translated into Lithuanian or Polish) were "Independence doesn't buy bread" and "Sell your soul - fill your bowl"?

The family

Another area where the Right is failing is in its attitude towards the family. For those of us whose marriages have failed, and who are separated or divorced it is a potentially thorny issue. Looked at logically, however, one's own personal circumstances should have no bearing upon the belief that marriage is still the ideal state in which to bring children into the world. Moreover, marriages last longer than co-habitation (what used to be called "living in sin"). Just because more and more people are deciding not to marry, it should not mean that political parties must drop their belief in marriage as an institution. If more people take drugs does that mean that drugs are suddenly okay? Populism is about leading the masses, as much it is about responding to them. If we are people-centred then we have to promote policies which have historically been proved to generate human happiness.

Regardless of what type of family we live in - be it married, living together or single, one family issue has come to the fore, especially during US elections. Gay marriage offends heterosexuals of many different backgrounds, including single parents and even some homosexuals themselves. We have a duty to tap into this public outcry, not by coming across as gay-bashers, but by pointing out the insidious way the gay lobby seeks to promote homosexual lifestyles in every walk of life and how damaging and unnatural it is to allow the parenting of children by lesbians and homosexuals. Far from being the aggressors in this argument, the Right has become timid and apologetic. The Tories, so afraid of being seen as the nasty party by young voters in London and other inner urban centres, decided to renege on their age-old policies and go quiet on gay marriage. The Tories are in a quandry, for many of their future leaders are university educated, and the universities are hotbeds of social liberalism. Luckily for Populists, graduates are hardly our main target group! Political reality tells us that.

The Right

There are clearly many more areas where we are very different to the old Right, from referenda to credit control, ecology to neutrality, we offer a more logical and cohesive policy. So should we be redefining the Right, or attempting to phase out its usage altogether?

When we hear phrases like the "New Right" or read magazines like "Right Now", what images are conjured up? Do we think of traditional conservatism, libertarian Thatcherism, nationalism, or Populism? More to the point, what does the public think when they hear someone described as "Right Wing"? Is the image of a puffed up Tory MP who calls for health cuts and goes on publicity stunts such as living on dole money for a week in Newcastle-upon-Tyne (for example), or is the image of a hang-em and flog-em man who opposes immigration. I work with a man with tough-minded views on law and order and immigration. He describes his politics as old Labour. I asked him why. He answered "because I am working class". So, it seems that there are several "Rights" including a socialist one...

There exists a void waiting to be filled, with the three main parties all proposing variants of a vision which is at heart materialistic, and pushing us towards a society where all but a few decisions are decided by multinationals. Democracy under such circumstances is an empty concept - for there is none. Which is why fewer people vote - they are not apathetic; on the contrary they are very clued up about the fact that their vote means next to nothing. Why do people even bother to register to vote under such circumstances?

The Right must become founded upon key themes, and these are as follows:

  • Opposition to globalisation. Keep things local and small scale.
  • Rejection of consumerism and materialism.
  • Support for the organic nuclear family, organic produce, and natural living.
  • Devolving power to the lowest level, the use of popular referendum, defence of the nation state, the county, the parish.
  • Defence of indigenous identities, traditions, languages, and cultures.
  • Opposition to political correctness, multiculturalism, liberalism, and all other unnatural forms of rule.