The description ‘alternative’ is nowadays applied to unorthodox approaches to medicine, energy, education, and many other fields of activity. Whatever their actual merits, these ‘alternatives’ imply loss of faith in conventional approaches. In medicine, for instance, dazzling examples of modern technology cannot disguise the fact that the incidence and outcome of the most common diseases remain much the same as before. And it is cogently argued that doubling the NHS budget would not produce very significant improvements in health and survival statistics (the budget has, after all, been doubled several times since 1948).

Similarly, there is growing awareness that massive investments in conventional power supplies and transport are not sustainable, producing more serious problems than they solve. "Never reinforce failure" is a wise counsel at any time; but we have to contend with powerfully entrenched organisations which have a very big stake in preserving things as they are. Thus the term ‘radical reappraisal’ strikes fear into all beneficiaries of the status quo. Such people prefer to keep telling us that we just need more of the same thing to solve stubbornly persistent problems; and not surprisingly, they are quick to dismiss any proposed alternatives as unworthy of serious consideration.

Difference in basic assumptions

But while recognising that self-interest is at the root of this reactionary attitude, we must also understand that what separates the ‘alternative’ from the conventional approach is a fundamental difference in basic assumptions. For example, the conventional treatment for most forms of cancer is directed to destroying the growth by chemotherapy, radiation and surgery; all attended by serious side-effects and with less than dramatic improvement in life-expectancy. In short, it regards cancer as a malignant, alien entity to be removed from the body by invasive techniques. By contrast, ‘alternative’ cancer therapy regards the disease as a failure of the body's natural immunity, and therefore concentrates on restoring and reinforcing the patient's general health. By thus removing the disposition to cancerous growths it allows what doctors understandably prefer to call ‘spontaneous remission’ of the disease. The point of all this is that reinforcing natural resistance to disease has to make more sense in the long run than open-ended investment in medical treatment.

The ‘caring professions’ label doesn't alter the fact that they are in the treatment business; but staying healthy is everybody's personal responsibility.

And when conventional forms of treatment fail, everyone has the right to look for alternative remedies.

So much for health and disease. Politics are about alternative socio-economic assumptions and their implications; and democratic freedom consists in the ability to make informed choices between the different policies on offer. Note the key word ‘informed’, since genuine democracy stands or falls on the quality of information available to the voting public regarding what each political party actually represents and intends. That information is nowadays filtered through a huge mass media network which puts its own spin on the events reported and exercises a covert censorship. Thus, seven days a week, the broadcast media blanket the entire nation with the same versions of what is going on in the world. Meanwhile the voter just wants to know what each political party ‘stands for’ but what he or she gets is a spurious choice between three main parties sharing the same platform of basic assumptions behind a facade of superficial differences in emphasis and detail. Thus the ‘pluralism’ on which democracy is supposed to rest is actually fraudulent; it offers no real alternative to the status quo.

Recognition of this lies at the root of growing public cynicism and apathy towards politics in general. The present situation can be summarised as three allegedly different parties contending for what is commonly described as the ‘middle ground’ of British politics. There is of course no such place; it is an invention of shallow opportunists mortally afraid of being stigmatised as ‘extremist’, and a bogus sanctuary for the politically naive. Remove the pious rhetoric and the ‘middle ground’ is exposed as the setting for racial, cultural and national suicide.

In these circumstances it would be profoundly mistaken for the British National Party to waste very limited time and resources disputing the ‘extremist’ label and concocting a bland, unprovocative image for the mass media. All such efforts are bound to fail anyway.

Emphasising the differences

The party must emphasise its differences from the Tory/Labour/LibDem coalition in the starkest possible terms. Never mind the ‘balloon’ slogans; the party's image must consist of a handful of easily remembered specific proposals for the regeneration of Britain. This extremely focused and sharply pointed campaigning strategy should leave no one in any doubt as to what a BNP government would actually do. This has the dual benefit of deflating misrepresentation by opponents and leaving them starkly exposed on the crucial issues. Everybody should be made fully aware that the main planks of BNP policy are: repatriation of unwanted immigrants; withdrawal from the European Union; preserving the United Kingdom; a self-supporting economy; and support for the family. And only those who pledge support for these specific commitments qualify as bona fide British nationalists.

It follows that the only wasted votes in the present climate are those which maintain the disastrous Tory/Labour/LibDem coalition.