This isn’t going to be an easy read if you subscribe to certain political parties as I shall be laying down some hard home truths. Don’t take it personally. That being said, given the problems that the populist right is currently under at the moment, these truths must be stated.
Let’s get started. And no, this will not feature only UKIP.
Given the recent shocking revelations about UKIP leader Gerard Batten (mainly his hypocrisy about the people he kicks out of the party – especially given his disgusting treatment of economics whizz Catherine Blaiklock, and prominent Brexit campaigner Luke Nash-Jones – as well as the worrying company he keeps and his out of touch anti Trump rhetoric) one can be forgiven for thinking that Batten’s moronic lack of good optics may be not the best option for a supposedly serious political party that wants to win votes again.
But it represents a wider problem for the populist right than simply Batten’s running of UKIP (seemingly into the ground) can show. It is that our movement, whether it be through the people, the ideas and the parties we put forward needs to respect the Overton Window.
I shall explain. The Overton Window is a political idea of which details the acceptability and tolerance for any political proposal. Its originator Joseph P. Overton (former Vice President of Mackinac Center for Public Policy) outlined with this concept how any political idea’s viability hinges on whether it fits into a window of acceptable ideas, and this mattered more than a major politician’s preferences as to what should be supported within a public sphere. There’s a time and place to say things.
Overton initially devised a vertical spectrum of ‘less free’ to ‘more free’, not only to avoid mundane comparisons with the typical left-right economic spectrum, but also to indicate that a slew of political ideas may become more or less viable as his spectrum changes over time.
The concept was furtherly developed by political commentator Joshua Treviño, of who opined that such a range of ideas ranged from the category of ‘Unthinkable’ to that of ‘Policy’, with the former describing ideas that are not acceptable to the latter of which are to the point where a government can implement them as policy. There have been more addition and theorising about the Overton Window after Overton’s death, highlighting how crucial such an idea still is to this day.
It is because it is simple bread and butter politics; any political party or movement that takes themselves seriously and wants to attain high office has to have acceptable ideas to the masses and by extension the electorate if they ever want to become popular, in short they ought to pay attention to this policy otherwise such a group is doomed to fail for the indefinite future.
In Layman’s Terms, it is simply committing political suicide to ignore this concept and its subsequent repercussions.
Hence why myself (among many others in the populist right movement, including many of my colleagues at the Red Pill Factory) are so amazed as to how seemingly little the main parties on our side of the political spectrum actually care about this, or basic optics for that matter.
It seems that they are more bothered by pushing the envelope for breaking taboo ideas in the hope that shall win votes by itself, but that is not the case.
Firstly, let’s examine the current situation with UKIP, not to mention the utter sh*tshow their current leader Gerard Batten is now in.
Now like many of you, I am completely shocked at the way Batten has badly handled UKIP, not to mention the dreadful company he has kept over the last few months. Now while I can appreciate that UKIP has always been partially a populist party and has been largely smeared and demonised for being so, that doesn’t mean it should endlessly run with every single big issue that the left wants to avoid and handle it in a controversial manner.
To be frank, I left UKIP back in September 2017 because they were not willing to move on beyond Brexit. While the likes of Anne Marie Waters were willing to do that at the time, the victory of Henry Bolton meant that UKIP was too afraid to tackle other big issues that affect British society, most notably the giant elephant in the room of radical Islam and how our politically correct establishment seemed so determined to sweep it under the rug.
The fact that the likes of UKIP (and by extension Bolton) were so willing to behave the same (even going as far to call those who talked about it such as Waters racist for doing so, something UKIP had been falsely accused of for years) made me lose confidence in them, especially given how dismissive UKIP were in terms of how disillusioned members would leave the party.
This seemed to me to be rather foolhardy, both given that they seem to be very snobby to those who had legitimate fears about radical Islam, not to mention rather casual about it, given that such people could potentially be exploited by legitimate far right parties, as they have done in the past.
So I do appreciate the fact that Batten is willing to talk about radical Islam and be blunt with it as he has done. It is the breath of fresh air I felt UKIP was calling for, and it was about time it embraced it, rather than run from it as it had done for the longest time.
What I don’t appreciate however is the way UKIP as a whole is addressing both the question of Islam, and the legitimate concerns that me among many others have towards the company Batten keeps over this issue. For the former, it seems debatable how seriously UKIP is handling such an issue.
The main thing that has always kept UKIP back from being a unified force and truly challenging the Westminster clique is their infighting and unfortunately under Batten it seems no different. Already various high up members in UKIP have criticised Batten and his stances, most notably after he called Islam a “death cult”.
Suzanne Evans, the moderate wing of UKIP, has admitted on Twitter that she feels that given recent polls, if UKIP were more centrist than Batten is now (not to mention her criticism of his association with anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson, but more on that later), the party would be ‘hoovering up votes’.
Meanwhile, various UKIP members have quit the party over Batten’s stances, including Members of the European Parliament James Carver, Bill Etheridge, and spurned by Gerard Batten, the rather well-connected Lord Dartmouth, the step-brother of the late Princess Diana, and step-uncle to the future king, Prince William, who resigned from UKIP because of the party’s association with what he called ‘outlandish individuals’ (who shall be mentioned below). Lord Dartmouth’s constituency manager kindly invited Make Britain Great Again down to the South West to address a rally on the question of an English Parliament.
Meanwhile, even former leader Nigel Farage has criticised Batten’s tone on Islam, feeling it would lose the Tory Brexiteer vote, or some would say, the moderate Muslim vote.
Are these centrist types within UKIP (of whose voices are as legitimate as any others within the party) afraid of Batten’s rhetoric around certain issues like Islam, or are they concerned about the Overton Window and the poisonous company he keeps (more on that later)?
Given Batten’s seeming willing ignorance of such populist rightwing voices, it seems unlikely that any more nuanced voices are to be listened to. Therefore, if he cannot be bothered to respect a more moderate outlook, what chance does he have to draw in the vast majority of moderate in our electorate, of who aren’t particularly intrigued by any outlandish behaviour or rhetoric from either side of the political spectrum?
UKIP managed to gain the massive traction that it did through appealing to the centre right and typical conservatives of who had felt let down by the seeming willingness of the Conservative Party to become more liberal under David Cameron.
Those lost votes have to be regained somehow, and appealing to more fringe voices isn’t going to do that. Especially given how debatable it is that Batten is very worried about radical Islam (especially given odd ventures such as his speech in Rochdale with the DFLA whereby he didn’t mention how radical Islam was involved in grooming gangs in the town), it seems weird why he would continue the various infighting issues that has happened in UKIP since day 1.
Keeping the infighting going all the while being too extreme for more moderate voices within your party is not a good look, especially given that such moderate voices build up the core for your support.
Not to mention the other worries about the dreadful company Batten keeps. This is mainly seen through his hypocrisy over the whole Bookmarks bookstore incident. While he kicked out prominent Brexit activist Luke Nash-Jones for being in the same unfortunate situation as everyone else (of which didn’t include myself), others who had done far worse at the incident were still allowed to stay.
Mark Martin (otherwise known as his YouTube alias Buska In The Park) called for the burning of bookstores, all the while having punched an innocent Muslim of who had simply been verbally rude to him and had carried illegal firearms in the form of pepper spray, both of which led to his individual arrests for such crimes.
He was allowed to stay for two months before threatened legal action led to Mark Martin being kicked out of UKIP. David Sumner assaulted the shopkeeper by pushing him. Not only was he not suspended, but had a selfie with both Batten and the party’s Family and Children Spokesman Alan Craig.
Meanwhile Glenn Teale got involved with other shenanigans related to the bookstore, but was also not suspended, presumably because of his partner being on the UKIP NEC. Given the whole PR disaster the bookstore incident was for UKIP, one could only wonder why the worst offenders of the original incident and its fallout were not suspended.
Again, this shows Batten’s unhelpfulness when it comes to optics. To make matters worse, Nash-Jones had informed UKIP about the likes of Mark Martin’s behaviour, but again nothing was done.
And then there are the bigger names when it comes to UKIP. I am deeply alarmed at how the party under Batten is now flirting with Generation Identity, a legitimately racist political group, and no I’m not using that as a lazy ad hominem attack. Given their advocacy of ethnopluralism (in other words racial segregation) and even apartheid, one can only wonder what the heck any serious political party would be doing when going into bed with them.
There are other problems with Generation Identity, of which you can read about here. To make matters worse, the youth wing of UKIP (Young Independence) had invited its Austrian branch leader Martin Sellner over to give a talk, of which was cancelled after much righteous outcry by the principled Luke Nash-Jones.
After all, it seems rather strange that a party that is committed to banning several racist groups allows the likes of Sellner (of who was also involved in the Nazi circle in Austria until 2011 and attended an SS vigil) in so casually. Are these people so uninvolved that they can’t be bothered to understand how legitimate nutjobs would hurt a party’s image?
Then again, the party seems to be desperate to win the youth vote, hence their embracing of big name political YouTubers to the party. Granted, I too was initially intrigued by this exodus, especially at the time, I was a big fan of some of these YouTubers, including at the time Sargon Of Akkad.
Given his recent comments claiming some child rape is consensual, I can no longer watch him, and am disgusted at not only his laughable attempt to cover himself when we at the Red Pill Factory criticised him for that (by using endless ad hominem slurs and not refuting our points – in other words, confirming what we had said) but how he is still allowed to be a prominent member of a political party. Batten has not removed him despite the widespread reach of the comments across the internet. Not to mention Sargon’s legitimate Neo-Nazi links, but never mind.
I fully appreciate there are many passionate fans of activist Steven Yaxley-Lennon “Tommy Robinson” around the UK, and Make Britain Great Again did organise a ‘Free Tommy’ rally, livestream many, and Luke Nash-Jones paid for many placards, banners and leaflets. However, Britain’s position on many issues Tommy and others campaign for will not change unless it leaves the EU. Brussels stop us deporting jihadis. They stop us turning away fake refugees. Therefore, the foremost goal must be to exit the EU. Given that the anti-Islam position is outside the Overton Window, and will alienate the Tory Brexit voters UKIP wants to win over, why, when Batten gets a chance to address a television audience did he think the wisest thing was to call Islam a “death cult”?
Regards Robinson, whatever someone may be now, a hero certainly to many, and while there are inconsistencies regards his imprisonment, implying a severe injustice, the rotten, ruthless propaganda campaign the left wing media have built against him for years, often highly unfair and very ad hominem, is very difficult to squash due to, as UKIP NEC member and military veteran Ben Walker raised, Robinson’s prior criminal behaviour – such a debate will distance many Brexit voters at a time UKIP should surely be trying to win them over. As opposed to the American right who have embraced Robinson, note that the British right’s Brexit stalwarts such as Julia Hartley-Brewer, Nigel Farage, and Peter Hitchens, have not, thereby causing a division in the Brexit community, and UKIP too with a branch closing, and party director Ben Walker threatening to quit, at the time we need to stand and united challenge Theresa May.
Gerard Batten, Tommy Robinson, Lauren Southern, Raheem Kassam, David Kurten, and others certainly have merits without doubt. While none of us are perfect, if I would dare suggest a flaw, there is their curious judgment of characters – for example, Robinson recruited a weird camera girl Lucy Brown who asked Antifa to beat Luke Nash-Jones up , and later she turned on Robinson on LBC Radio. Why did so many of these figures promote ethnopluralist (explained by a member at a conference as apartheid) Generation Identity, on both their Facebook pages and then read Sellner’s speech at Speaker’s Corner after the latter was banned from the UK? Helpful? Probably not. Frankly, rather illogical – Generation Identity’s ethnopluralist position is discriminatory towards Raheem Kassam, David Kurten, and the wife of Gerard Batten!
Why did Rebel Media invite former British National Party and alleged racist Jack Buckby to become Robinson’s protégé on their network, and to be Tommy’s replacement once he left? I don’t understand why Tommy, who stood on a tank in Israel, and waved an Israeli flag, would make Timothy Scott the leader of PEGIDA UK, or were Scott’s neo-Nazi links somehow unknown? And why was Batten standing on a stage with Justice for Our Boys after they burnt a Make Britain Great Again hat, and the thug James Goddard threatened Nash-Jones with violence?
By refusing to expel members who genuinely behave out of line, such as Mark Martin; dropping good members for his own personal vendettas; and entertaining nutjobs, Batten is clearly not one who is taking UKIP in the right direction and his alignments and policies are clearly not within the Overton Window.
Adding to this, his laughable rejection of US President Donald Trump (of who is admired by many Brits for his strong leadership qualities) and his embracing of other fringe groups (like the DFLA, of who have caused problems at both a rally in March of this year and the Day For Freedom too), shows his lack of appreciating moderation in this sense.
That is clearly not within the Overton Window, and it seems that Batten is very happy to let UKIP commit political suicide to fulfil his own agendas, and is turning UKIP into his own project as opposed to a collective party, all striving for the same goal.
To make matters worse, other parties in a similar vein aren’t much better. I should know. I was a member of one of them. That being specifically For Britain, otherwise known as the For Britain Movement.
Now I initially joined the party on the grounds that I was (now embarrassingly in hindsight) in awe with its leader Anne Marie Waters, and her refusal to back down when it came to criticising Islam. I was happy to be a member, and take part in many of the party’s activities.
Initially, I was welcomed into the party with open arms and treated very well. That all changed very fast for reasons that I shall outline over the next few paragraphs.
To give context in how much I lost faith in For Britain, consider this. I had been supportive of both the party and its leader for a very long time at this point.
Ever since I had first seen her at my first UKIP meeting back in 2017, I was inspired by her courage in tackling radical Islam, and being open to challenge about it without losing her cool. So when she lost the subsequent UKIP leadership election, I decided to join her new party For Britain.
I had done a lot of work for the party. I had gone to numerous events, despite the ramifications the party had by being incorrectly labelled as being ‘far right’. I had helped them canvass and leaflet throughout the constituency of Lewisham East during this year’s by-election in that seat.
I had shown support at the now infamous hustings there, whereby the idiots from Stand Up To Racism followed me back to the station in an event that made me paranoid for a while afterwards. And I was even planning to stand as a councillor in my ward in my town, knowing that such a move had repercussions, both on myself and my family.
Future work prospects could have been undermined and the left could have harmed those I hold so dear. I was so cautious about that that I even politely requested that leaflets bearing my name were to not include my home address under the fear of my family being attacked. I was putting a lot on the line for this party.
So you shall forgive me when I was shocked and angered by the aggressive and hysterical messages I received from prominent London branch member Anish Patel, of who had sent me such messages early in the morning and before I was going to conduct an interview for my university’s radio show with a lecturer.
The matter concerned a critical article I had written about Generation Identity. Don’t get me wrong; I stand by everything I stated in that article. I was weary of how such a legitimately racist group had hijacked this peaceful one, and was wanting to sound the alarms of associating ourselves with this group. Sounds reasonable, no?
However Anish went on a rather aggressive tirade against me for my views, firstly strawmanning me, claiming that I had suggested that ordinary members of Generation Identity were not welcome in For Britain, because of their views (I had said nothing of the kind).
I was then accused of being scared of the media by wanting to avoid legitimately racist groups. As if caring about optics means one is scared of the media by default. That is absurd. The media can lie and spin stories to suit their narratives as much as they please, but the Overton Window is mostly unaffected by this, as most people understand what works and what doesn’t.
If the media was this powerful, Brexit and President Trump would not be current news. However, racist groups are never within the Overton Window, hence why they never have tended to do well throughout history, except through brute force or when circumstances were so dire that any idea seemed good and therefore within the Overton Window at that time.
Generation Identity fell into that category and hence why I felt aiding them was a bad idea. That isn’t being scared of the media, but rather optics and what most of the public want. If you do not care about that, then you’re politically clueless.
Anish then highlighted how good many of the members were to him personally of which doesn’t mean anything and doesn’t prove me wrong about the inherent problems in Generation Identity (hence he avoided the point), but never mind. He then stated I was wrong about the group and my article was inaccurate. When I challenged him on this, he couldn’t respond, clearly because my article was accurate, and had sources from their website too.
I was then threatened too. When I wouldn’t give a public apology to Generation Identity as he requested, he stated that I was not welcome in For Britain and my presence would cause the party problems.
In short, I was being threatened because I didn’t subscribe to a racist group whose members have now gone so far as to call for apartheid, and whose former UK head had to step down due to how Neo-Nazis had managed to take central roles in that branch unchallenged.
The following are the screenshots from that conversation. They are pure gold:
I was quite frankly shocked. How could any party which takes itself seriously claim to be not racist while defending legitimate racist bigots? It didn’t make sense to me.
Not to mention that Generation Identity were acting like right wing snowflakes; being offended by statements they don’t like and don’t have the gall to challenge one in a public debate on the issue (something that has happened previously to other members here at the Red Pill Factory).
This was the beginning of the end for me being in For Britain. It only got worse from there, and especially after my graduation, whereby I had doubts as to how sustainable such small parties were to maintaining a political career, not to mention how their image could harm my own prospects when going into the likes of history writing, of which I want to work on someday.
Later on, I also become gravely concerned about some of the other dangerous people we were pushing. For example, you may remember how Luke Nash-Jones and myself were harassed by one of the co-heads of the Justice For Our Boys campaign James Goddard while covering the Sadiq Khan balloon event in London recently.
What should have been a funny stick up to the moronic Mayor of London became a rather tense cat and mouse game, whereby Goddard and his ilk kept following us and being rather aggressive. His behaviour became so bad that the police had to caution him for harassment.
To make matters worse, him along with his fellow idiots (including Vinnie Sullivan, who runs the TRR group with Glenn Teale, partner of UKIP NEC member Kate Fanning) bullied a freelance journalist to the point where she was visibly distressed and Luke and I had to go and comfort the poor woman. It was a terrible series of events and ruined a mostly fine day.
So you can imagine my shock when I saw Goddard’s content get shared on the For Britain group’s Facebook page. These were mainly clips of his livestream taken out of context (most notably his clash with the police as mentioned earlier), including his row with a police woman over his caution.
This shocked me, so I defended Luke and myself by posting our side of the story to the page. Thankfully, most who I talked who were peaceful and friendly about it (some clearly not knowing who Goddard was, hence the confusion), admitting their lack of the full context surrounding the situation.
However, one prominent member of the party (who for legal reasons, I am not going to name) whinged at me for sharing the Red Pill Factory at all, claiming Luke was a liar. Now forgive me for sounding emotional but given that I was there, I was frankly angry and unimpressed with a man who clearly was against Luke ever since Luke exposed him for having been in the openly racist BNP.
This was despite the fact that this person had admitted to being in said party previously. This indicates that either he is the only one who feels should talk about that past (because he feels more emotionally and personally attached to it) or he still has sympathy for the BNP, hence his anger whenever his part in it is brought up.
Needless to say, I wasn’t impressed and deleted the post to save myself more issues. To make matters worse, Gary Clarke (the leader of the idiotic Pendragons group of which UKIP NEC girl Kate Fanning’s boyfriend Glenn Teale was a member) was also being shared. Things were getting from bad to worse pretty quickly.
It all however culminated at the party’s conference. After taking ages to get there by train, it went mostly fine. However, one speaker was so terrible, it made me quit the party. Up until then I was planning to give the party until the end of this year to see how it was going. This speech made me decide to leave very soon afterwards.
After having heard the various speakers talk (including Waters), I heard Ingrid Carlqvist talk. Not knowing who she was at the time, I had assumed For Britain had vetted her and all would be good. Not so much. She talked very much about race. She discussed how native Swedes were blonde haired and blue eyed. She discussed how Iraqi Swedes were not really Swedes, paraphrasing the Dalia Lama. She even discussed repatriations, of which is clearly suicide politically. I was shocked. This was a clearly racist speech, of who would not be entertained by a political party wanting to be taken seriously.
To make matters worse, the audience were eating it up, laughing along and finding it entertaining and enlightening. Waters also nodded her head with her mouth open, clearly finding such a diatribe funny as well. I was the only one not enjoying it.
After retreating to the pub part of the venue, I sat alone with my hands on my head in clear shock. It was then that I decided to leave For Britain. The later speeches (including one by someone who stuttered talking about the Illuminati and the New World Order in some rather exaggerated way, like a nutjob) didn’t help wash down this sour taste. Funnily enough, both speeches have yet to be uploaded to the party’s YouTube page.
I left For Britain soon afterwards (the full statement I posted on the group’s Facebook page you can read here). The awe I once had towards Waters had long gone. The party had chewed me and spat me out, and I have no desire of going back.
It was a party not willing to appreciate moderation, even to the point whereby a friend of mine who was also in the party was received a heavy backlash (of which I was embarrassingly a part of) for daring to suggest that the party appeal to moderate Muslims and gain a wider voice from that. A lot of it was outright unacceptable abuse, like this wonderful exchange, of which this friend has kindly given me permission to republish:
If there was a clear lack on behalf of the party’s top brass and a good chunk of its members to embrace more moderation, what chance in hell does it have running in any election? It fails to meet the Overton Window, and therefore shall die a slow, painful death it has rightly earned.
So here is the current situation with the populist right political parties: on the one hand, you have parties like UKIP and For Britain that don’t appreciate optics and are more concerned with appealing to extremists as opposed to the wider more moderate base that consists of the British electorate.
Meanwhile, other parties like the English Democrats and the Our Nation Party have their own problems too, mainly in how they don’t really operate like serious political parties. The English Democrats apparently still hasn’t developed branches, has limited technological experience, has many former BNP members within its ranks, and even had a convicted felon run for them as a candidate. This has meant that besides occasional victories (like their 2009 win for the Mayor of Doncaster through Peter Davies – albeit he became an independent later on), they have been rather limited in terms of reach.
Meanwhile, the Democrats & Veterans Party has potential to be a Five Star Movement, but their charismatic leader busy with work in Africa, and its deputy leader resigned.
Even the Libertarian Party (of which seems to be the most moderate populist right party as of now) is also very limited and tends to do very poorly at elections. Their only success has come from defections, most notably Bill Etheridge doing so after leaving UKIP. And given that we have already had an arguably libertarian Prime Minister in the form of Margaret Thatcher, it is hard to see how such an ideology is going to sell massively again, given the legitimate criticisms that Thatcherism entailed.
Besides, its not like Thatcherites in the Conservative Party are not already adopting the libertarian conservative positions Thatcher helped to embolden while in office. In short, while the populist right is a great movement, its political parties are a simple joke, nothing more.
Many smaller parties are simply vanity projects for their respective leaders and nothing more, hence why they are very limited in terms of electoral success.
But there is also another problem. As I mentioned earlier, all these parties seem to think that any controversial issue that is pushed is enough to win votes singlehandedly. This is because since Brexit won, and talking about the European Union and its dire implications was such a taboo for so long and the various smears and lies and character assassinations the press were willing to place on someone who dared break that taboo, ergo propter hoc means that any controversial issue here on in must be pushed as that shall win votes alone.
But this isn’t how Brexit won. Euroscepticism had always been within the Overton Window, despite the media’s various attempts to cover it up and smear such a movement. It won cross party support, and that is why it won.
The various fringe positions these parties take on certain issues is so nutty that it almost seems intentional, either to confine these parties to political oblivion to keep legitimate ideas at bay or to encourage negative actions later on for other nefarious groups that financially aid these parties.
After all, we have had a senior journalist (of who I shall not name for legal reasons) tell our team at the Red Pill Factory to stop criticising Saudi Arabia, mainly to seemingly push for more war against non-threats and ignore true enemies as one example.
In part, it makes me realise how good Nigel Farage was when he was leading UKIP. I also want to slightly atone for an article I had previously written criticising Farage for not seemingly wanting UKIP to move on beyond Brexit. Luke Nash-Jones also, will rather displeased with Nigel over his support of Henry Bolton, is clearly cheering for Farage again.
While I do stand by a lot of what I said in that article (including his hypocrisy in standing with some anti-Islam politicians and movements all the while bashing others of which one could argue were less extreme), I do have to concede something. Farage was right to be weary of the likes of Anne Marie Waters taking over UKIP. Was he wrong to call her racist? Yes. That being said, he was right to be nervous about the ramifications of her taking charge, as the mess that is For Britain demonstrates.
He is also right about Batten. We need to appeal to the vote of moderate Muslims if we ever want to stand a chance at combating radical Islam, otherwise we are doomed from the start if we smear all Muslims as terrorists or whatever. A movement like Mothers Against Radical Islam And Sharia is a good example of this. Their speakers say nothing extreme. They happily give platforms to moderate Muslims. And they advocate peaceful solutions and unity, not the angry rhetoric and often limiting messages that many of these populist right parties engage in. They have peers on their side, most notably crossbench peer Baroness Caroline Cox. Its leader Toni Bugle has spoke in the House Of Lords about such problems.
If such parties want to tackle radical Islam, groups like that are who we need to support, not fringe racist groups and whackjob YouTubers of whose audiences are very limited and shall get us nowhere really fast.
Because who matters more? The few thousand Generation Identity members across Europe or the millions of working class Brits crying for change? It is clearly the latter.
And again, this isn’t a dig against any of the individual members of these parties who mean very well. It is not them of who I have beef with, but rather their higher ups of who have no idea what the hell they are doing. To quote Arsenal fan DT:
That is exactly my point. Ordinary members understand optics in a way only the top brass could understand. Heck, even former Generation Identity head for the UK Tom Dupree, who admits he joined a nasty organisation, knows this.
Such parties need to start appreciating the Overton Window now, or they shall die as a movement.
And that shall be truly dangerous, as the legitimate far right are allowed to rise once again.
(Articles reflect the views of the author, and not necessarily those of Luke Nash-Jones, The Red Pill Factory, or Make Britain Great Again.)