We have many political aims. Our primary ambition is to rekindle the non-materialistic spirit within Britain...

We have many political aims. Our primary ambition is to rekindle the non-materialistic spirit within Britain, which has animated the British people for the overwhelming majority of their history. Domestically: we seek to rejuvenate the failing public services in Britain, including the National Health Service, via the introduction of a new, efficient model, and reform our justice system to reflect morals more in line with public opinion. We furthermore seek to ensure that men and women of great ability have a chance to influence governmental policy with their ideas, regardless of their wealth or influence. Internationally: we aim to restore relations with many leaderships that are receiving our Government’s hostility unjustly, pledge to cease acting as the antagonist in global conflict, and substantially reduce immigration into Britain.

Attached: 473.png (680x489, 101K)

Other urls found in this thread:

newbritishunion.co.uk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The most significant difference between the Fascist ideology and the failed ideologies of today’s Western political spectrum is our un-waning desire to address issues beyond the scope of materialist doctrine. Capitalism and socialism, in the modern world, have their success evaluated by analysis of economic figures. Whilst we recognise the necessity of a prosperous economy, Fascists are the only political ideologues whose criteria for a successful political ideology include the happiness and spiritual health of the nation’s people. Our unique diagnosis of the failures within British politics is a direct consequence of our dedication to understanding, truly, what the needs of the British people are.
Another fundamental difference between our political model and the current ones offered to the British people is our dedication to ensuring that people with worthwhile ideas shall have a platform on which to present them, where they may then be scrutinized and thereafter potentially form part of Governmental policy. Any Government that wishes to implement only the most supreme ideas – and a Government certainly should, if it wishes to perform at supreme efficiency – should acknowledge the fact that a greater abundance of good policy proposals, relative to some field, come from outstanding and experienced workers within that field, rather than from the politicians, whose only noteworthy talent is selling falsehoods to the masses.

We believe that the measure of a nation’s excellence is determined by three factors: primarily, the extent to which it fulfils the needs of its people and shields them from hardship. Beyond this, our criteria are: the rate at which scientific and technological advancements are made; and how successfully the nation preserves its own traditions and culture. Thus, we believe the duty of the Government is to excel in these three areas.

Well you see the thing is, we don't need fascism to achieve any of your proposals. Any ideology (bar communism) could work towards the goals you have in mind.

We feel that Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs accurately reflects the needs of individuals, and thus the needs of the British people. These 8 categories of needs are further divided into two subcategories: deficiency needs and growth needs. The deficiency needs are, in order of importance: physiological; safety; love; esteem. If an individual does not have any one these needs met, they will endure some hardship. For example, a person who has low self-worth will suffer mentally, as will someone who feels unloved. A person without shelter and physical security will endure a great magnitude of both physical and mental turmoil, and those who have their basic physiological needs unmet – left unfed, without clean water – will perish after a short time. Growth needs, likewise in order of importance, are: cognitive; aesthetic; self-actualisation; transcendence. For an individual to flourish in life, they must first be educated and self-aware, conscious of their manners and how they present to others. Then their aesthetic needs must be met: they must feel pleased with how they look, and be able to recognise beauty. Self-actualisation involves the remainder of the person’s unique goals and aspirations, and after the achievement of these, they feel wholly fulfilled. Finally, a transcended person is someone who seeks to help others attain self-actualisation.

Addressing the deficiency needs, we first consider the most fundamental of the set – physiological needs. The group in Britain that are most consistently having these needs unmet are the homeless people of the nation – including those living in hostels and temporary accommodation – and number in excess of 250,000 according to the charity Shelter. Such is the extent of the homelessness crisis that in London, 1 in 50 people are homeless; in Luton, the ratio is 1 in 60 people; in Brighton, it is 1 in every 70. Any Government that does not absolutely prioritise working to correct this fundamental inadequacy with the British political system cannot call themselves morally righteous. The solution to the homeless problem is multi-faceted, and the argument for its supreme effectiveness will become more thoroughly justified upon reading the other economic mechanisms described later in this text, pertaining namely to production, foreign markets, and the Bank of England.

We must begin by acknowledging that the best path to physiological fulfilment is employment, which will provide a regular source of income. Thus, our aim is to identify and remove any obstacles that stand between the homeless and employment. Immediately, the issue of unemployment arises. If 4.6% of the workforce are already without labour, where will the jobs come from to employ an additional 250,000 people? The answer to the problem requires several actions: firstly, the national retirement age must be lowered to 63. This will immediately vacate 400,000 elderly workers from the labour market to a well-deserved retirement, where their marginal propensity to consume will increase and thus the velocity of money in the economy will hasten. Many of these jobs, however, will be consumed by the 1,530,000 people currently unemployed. The remaining unemployed will find work with the many new local- and medium-sized businesses that shall arise through incentives offered by the Bank of England (described subsequently); many, too, will find employment with enlarged British production and its producers, which shall arise through new approaches to economics, foreign aid and diplomacy (again, described subsequently).

In order to motivate employers to give work to the homeless, who are naturally disadvantaged because of their practical situation, a ‘bridging period’ wage must be introduced, whereby employers hiring the currently-homeless may sign 6-month work contracts at a wage rate of £5.50, thereafter being required to pay at least the national minimum wage. Such a mechanism will allow homeless people the opportunity to gain guaranteed 6-month employment, experience and a wage – which will aid in the fulfilment of their physiological needs. For the employer, this mechanism represents a reduction in cost of production/service, and thus considered over the nation, will represent a reduction in the inflation rate (“costpush”) whilst homelessness decreases.

Upon reading our economic model subsequently, it will become clear that such an idea as the production of Britain equalling the consumption of Britain, and simultaneously providing the nation with full employment, is not mere fantasy but in fact an achievable reality. The Fascist model guarantees a high purchasing power for the British people, a purchasing power which will allow the physiological and safety needs of the greatest possible majority to be met.
In order to meet the individual’s needs of love and self-worth, the Government must ensure that the people are treated with the consideration that they are each a fundamental component of the greatness of Britain, and that their needs are truly considered. To this end, members of the executive must leave the confines of Whitehall frequently, traversing the nation and listening to the people’s opinions; they must also propagate the absolute truth that the strength of the nation, and the power behind all its advancements and glories, is the people. They must be unashamed in spreading this truth, that the unwavering efforts of each individual in the nation are the sole contributor to the national effort as a whole; Britain is its people, and its people are Britain.

Let us now consider the growth needs: cognitive; aesthetic; selfactualisation; transcendence. Considering the cognitive needs of the nation: we must ensure that all children receive optimum education, and the Fascists will actualise this through the creation of the Educators’ Syndicate (whose mechanism is described in the answer to question eight).
The aesthetic and cognitive needs of adults may be given the greatest opportunity of fulfilment by a new moral approach to entertainment and the media. Music, television and film are all rapidly losing their quality in the modern world; content once imbued with noble values and talent now replaced by mass

produced cliché, propagated through perverse and immoral imagery, pumped as aggressive stimuli into the masses – including, increasingly, the nation’s children. The same hand – controlling all these three industries – has seen it fit to poison the waters from which the masses have ever-imbibed their relief from life (entertainment) for the dual intention of both poisoning the drinker and making the most profit in charging for the drink. The Fascists pledge to clear the pollution from these waters.
Our aims are myriad: to reduce, as much as is possible, the objectification and sexualisation of women through television, film and music; end the promotion of violence on such a wide scale to younger audiences; cease the media promotion of subcultures that inherently contradict the national interest, such as gangster culture; to promote the nuclear family model, and clarify the utmost importance of those who choose to raise a family; to provide the masses a source from which they may obtain unbiased fact, from which they may then form their opinions and worldviews; to halt the spread and encouragement of vanity by special business interests; and to more vigilantly shield children from inappropriate material.

This will be achieved by creating stricter guidelines for the content of material conveyed through television, film and music. The regulations would not censor these mediums on grounds of, for example, violence or sexual content directly, but rather on context – the message being conveyed to the masses. Violence and sexual content shall, however, be banned from public broadcasting that may be seen or heard by children, including daytime radio and television. The British Broadcasting Corporation shall, at last, put the taxpayers’ money to good use, creating entertainment that empowers fundamental roles in society – mothers, families, workers, and so on. Furthermore, as explained in the answer to question twelve, the people of the nation will regulate media companies through the national syndicates, and thus the nation (not the Government) will remove media bias in any way it sees fit.

We shall seek to replace trade unions with national syndicates. Currently, if some worker feels their own opinions and the opinions of their employer are discrepant, trade unions will seize the opportunity to exacerbate tension between the employer and the worker, promoting behaviours (such as strikes) that are unconducive to the national interest, and seldom resolve the initial differences in opinion. To contrast the form of these trade unions, national syndicates comprise of both worker and employer, who are given equal magnitude of voting power on any issue passed through the syndicate. These syndicates will be specific to certain fields, occupations and roles – for example, a syndicate would be created for farmers; scientists; doctors; housewives and mothers; teachers; and so on – with branched regional administrative teams operating within the ceremonial counties of Britain. Should either the worker, or the employer, create some mechanism or policy which they feel has significant value, then a facile system shall allow them to submit this idea for scrutiny by the syndicate’s council via the council’s local representative. This council must be comprised of workers within the syndicate’s field, who display exceptional ability, and who are democratically elected to the council by the syndicate’s membership. Once the idea has been approved by the council, it will then be put to a vote by the membership of the syndicate; upon approval, and provided it poses no conflict to the national interest, it must be introduced into Governmental policy. This mechanism, as well as allowing the regulation of certain fields to be determined by experienced workers within that field, is also more in line with the true meaning of democracy (“government by the people of the nation”), as opposed to our current warped variant (“government by people acting on the behalf of the people of the nation”).

National syndicates must be in public ownership to ensure that no material factor (or any bias from private interests) affects how an individual’s idea is considered. There shall be one syndicate per occupational field nationally, and their creation shall herald the end of the era of trade unions.

Syndicates shall also perform the duty of the trade unions in resolving disputes between employer and employee. The fundamental difference between the two entities and their mechanisms is that under syndicalism employers, whose membership of the syndicates must be compulsory, shall no longer face the antagonistic negotiations that occur between themselves and the workers, which in itself fuels class tension and quells productivity and worker motivation. Instead, the state shall oversee the constructive negotiations between the worker and employer, who, belonging to the same discrete entity, and with equal voice, will each face no greater obstacle to their wishes than the strength of the other’s argument. The state must ultimately decide upon an outcome if the negotiations are fruitless. This way, absolute consideration may be given to both the national interest and also the rights and needs of the worker.

We support the existence of the monarchy, with all its modern conventions, as both a noble moral entity and as a great symbol of British tradition.

It seems to us perfectly clear that the aim of our democracy is to implement the wishes of the British people into the nation’s political model. We wholeheartedly support this desire, deeming opposition to this aim to be an act of treason against the British people, and thus a great deal of our efforts have been directed into defining mechanisms that may facilitate this goal. However, the current means of our democracy – the system through which the voice of Britain is supposed to be heard, and thereafter acted upon – is woefully inadequate, and fails to realise its own goals. There are two primary reasons for this failing: firstly, the necessity of political parties to secure a great magnitude of funding in order to finance the propagation of their ideologies. The result of this is the obligation of political powers to prioritise fulfilling the needs of their financiers above fulfilling the needs of the masses who issued their mandate to govern. If Governmental attention is diverted towards some such sectional interest, instead of its own people, then this is an absolute injustice that must certainly be rectified if true democracy is to exist.

The second significant contributive factor to the failings of our current democratic system is the role of the press. The function of Britain’s news companies should be, in the ideal, to provide the masses with a source of unbiased, objective facts regarding world affairs from which the masses may then form their world-views. Instead, the current British press serves as nothing more than a vehicle through which the political agendas of a small group of multi-millionaires are propagated. Rather than enabling the British people to forge their own opinions by presenting them with a solid base of facts, the press in Britain today prefer to dictate to the masses the opinions they should hold dear, and the opinions they should abhor, often relying on a tirade of bias and falsehood to secure their success in this pursuit. The result of this is that the nature political discourse is determined by a small number of rich individuals, rather than by the nation as a whole.

we shall not oblige ourselves to the will of any special interest in return for their financial support. We are only obliged to the British people, and no financial power shall be allowed to successfully deter our aims. Because of this, we require the aid of the people who believe in our message in spreading it further, so that the Fascist ideology may enter mainstream political dialogue.

we would grant political parties, as well as the Government (as a discrete entity), the same right as a citizen to sue media companies for propagation of false libel, judged in equal manner as a citizen’s trial would be. In addition to this, an entity – entirely independent from the Government – would be created comprising of a variety of ideologues (selected from the British people, elected by the British people) who would discuss media regulation, and implement it upon a majority vote. This entity, wholly independent of any Governmental actors (who would be barred from the entity’s membership), would not be subject to any Governmental bias and would solely reflect the will of the people in the field of media regulation.
In the more general sense, the Fascist system of syndicates is a mechanism more akin to the real definition of democracy (government by the people) than the representative system, because the people that determine the course of action and policies of some field or sector are the people who work within that field or sector. If Britain was truly democratic, it would not be farfetched to imagine some scenario in which a Frenchman asked a Briton: “which individuals comprise the executive of your nation?” and was returned the reply: “why, the population of Britain!” Surely such an exchange seems more fundamentally truthful under the syndicalist system than the system of dictatorial cronyism currently forced upon the British people

We identify the banking system in Britain as being fundamentally flawed, and one of the primary contributors to the ever-decreasing purchasing power of the British people. In the current model, banks invest saved monies in other ventures, in order to deliver on their promise of return-on-savings-with-interest. A failure of these investments to produce a return results in the loss of private individuals’ saved monies, and en masse produces banking crashes, as the banks are unable to produce all the saved money in their trust upon request. To combat this complete failing on the part of the banks, the Bank of England prints more money in a scheme of “quantitative easing”. The only lasting result of this is the inflation of money, as each discrete amount of Sterling is thereafter worth less than before – and thus, people can buy less with their money. Increasing inflation (at such a rate, higher than the increase in wage growth) also decreases the national aggregate demand, thus shrinking British markets.
Usury rates imposed upon the people by the banks – be it in the form of loans, credit card repayments, mortgages, and so on – are designed so as to extract the most possible value from the peoples’ hands and place it into the hands of the bank owners, as per the very nature of any capitalist business. The result of such steep, immoral rates, however, is the universal reduction in quality of life across all socio-economic classes in Britain, and ever-increasing inflation. Such inflation has, across only three generations, taken the British people from being a nation of home-owners outright, to being a nation of mortgage-repayers, and now in this age to being a nation of rent-payers. If no action is taken to halt the inflation caused by the banks, then within only two generations all private property ownership will be but a fantasy, and the British people will be eternal slaves to the banks for every product they own or consume.

We would immediately terminate the independence of the Bank of England, instead allowing the government to determine monetary policy. Upon doing so, we would then write law giving the Government the ability to set maximum lending rates from commercial banks to the people. By nature of the fact that the government would set the rates at which these commercial banks borrowed from the Bank of England, the government could thus control the width of the bracket for the profits of commercial banks – which represent value being taken from the hands of all socio-economic classes.
In addition to this, we would require commercial banks to be capitalized to a minimum of 50% of their liabilities. Because an immediate implementation of this law would cause chaos in the banking system, it would be implemented over six years in increasing increments: in the first year, banks must be capitalized up to 25%; in the second, 30%; in the third, 35%; in the fourth, 40%; in the fifth, 45%; in the sixth, 50%. This will substantially reduce the chances of a banking crisis occurring, and even in the event it should, the Bank of England will have to print less money to rectify the crisis than in the current model, resulting in less inflationary increase, and thus reducing the purchasing power loss experienced by the nation.

As a result of this, the banks will inevitably have less money to invest in the private sector within Britain. To combat this, the Bank of England must set aside £25bn per year (from its reserves) to offer as loans to small- and medium-sized businesses in Britain – at such a rate as not to return a profit. That is, the rate of return on these loans must be exactly equal to the inflation rate of the Pound – primarily, because the Bank of England must not impose usury on its citizens, but also because such a rate is optimal for increasing aggregate demand, which thus creates larger British markets. The end result of this mechanism is higher employment, due to the creation of more businesses, and a higher purchasing power of the average Briton, due to both higher employment and also the enlargement of the middle-class with more small- and medium sized business owners.

Such an increase in purchasing power amongst those who do not have a high marginal propensity to consume income (i.e. the working- and lower-middle classes) will in turn create larger markets in Britain. This increase in aggregate demand creates the need for greater supply. If managed correctly by the Government (by use of the aforementioned mechanism and further protectionist incentives, discussed in answers to subsequent questions), this will expand the private sector in Britain, further increasing the purchasing power of the average Briton – and thus the cycle repeats: growing the markets of Britain, growing the private sector of Britain, increasing the purchasing power of Britain, until the real Gross Domestic Product of the nation reaches its natural output level (as suggested by Keynesian theory) and an optimum economic equilibrium is achieved. At this point, the Bank of England’s spending into business would be reduced to a level such that average spending into the private sector (i.e. the sum of state and private investment) would equal natural losses within the private sector, so as to ensure that neither of the following outcomes occur: a) Gross Domestic Product rapidly decreases (in the case where investment < losses); b) Price levels increase dramatically with no significant increase in Gross Domestic Product (in the case where investment > losses).

Incorporated businesses will face asset seizure in order to cover the value of the loan, as any entity would currently. However, unincorporated businesses and sole traders would not face such consequences; instead, the debt will be reorganised into a longterm repayment plan for the involved individual(s). Within the banks coffers, the defaulted debt will be immediately covered from the profits made by loans to commercial banks, which in any realistic model will easily cover, with surplus, all defaulted loan repayments.

Too frequently does the justice system allow absolute injustices to occur, and too seldom does it offer adequate consequence to those who act against the rule of law. Again and again, and with evergreater frequency in recent years, we have witnessed fundamental inadequacy on the part of the nation’s police force. Whilst child grooming gangs operate en masse, unabated, all along the length and breadth of Britain, and whilst drug-dealing cliques infect the nation with addictions to chemicals, our police prioritise persecuting those who seek to defend themselves, and those who exercise their legal right to free speech.
It seems that in the modern era, paedophiles operating for years in organised abuse rings have little to fear; such a fear is reserved for those that dare to criticise Islam on social media, or object to current immigration laws. The police have become spirited with cowardice, such that they care more about defending their ‘politically-correct’ status than defending the law-abiding citizens of this nation.

The laws of the land are, too, fundamentally flawed. Imprisoning an individual requires spending the fruits of workers’ labour (taxation) on sheltering, feeding, and maintaining said individual. Whilst this is the most adequate solution for some criminals, there are hordes of individuals cluttering our prisons for who such treatment is far too good, considering the nature of their crimes. They are a drain on our national resources, and their quality of life is an injustice considering the wrongs they have perpetrated – reference is made here to murderers, paedophiles and rapists: individuals who have permanently and irreparably damaged the quality of life of innocents.
Furthermore, there are crimes whose heinous nature is wholly understated in legal legislature. People who abuse animals, people who financially take advantage of the elderly, and people who mentally damage children are but some of the individuals who escape true justice in this nation. We must acknowledge the absolute fact that the worst crimes are perpetrated against sentient life – human or otherwise – and of these, the most wicked of them all are crimes against dependents (life that is dependent on other independent life for its survival). Dependants include children, the elderly, the physically and mentally handicapped, and domesticated animals; current laws do not sufficiently protect their rights. The Fascist stance is that these dependants are the only ones deserving of any special privilege in society; in the current model, they are afforded lesser consideration than all others.

We believe wholeheartedly in the eternal adage: “with great power comes great responsibility”. At present, our police force is afforded great power to halt criminal activity in the nation, yet they are not responsible for their actions proportional to this power. For example, recent child-grooming scandals have revealed that members of the police force – for example, in relation to the Rochdale case – were fully aware of criminal activity occurring, yet did nothing to trigger its cessation. The Fascists would enforce legal legislature incurring equal penalties for those police officers exercising such negligent behaviour as the perpetrators of the crime itself. Police officers have a duty to prevent crime – and thus, we reason, any officer with knowledge of a crime who fails to act upon it is complicit in the facilitation of said crime, and is thus as guilty of criminal wrongdoing as the perpetrator(s). Such a law will substantially motivate the police force to further act on knowledge of wrongdoing, because turning a blind eye for the sake of ease will now incur severe penalties.
The death penalty shall be reintroduced for paedophiles, rapists and murderers. We deem it so that any individual who perpetrates such acts is of no value whatsoever in a civilised society, and it is a great injustice to spend the taxpayers’ money on their shelter. Furthermore, the threat of death will act as a deterrent to future potential murderers, rapists and paedophiles, thus preventing irreparable damage to innocent lives. Unlike the American system, where convicts await death in prison cells for years on end, we recommend that the guilty draw their final breaths within one week of their convictions. Finally, we recommend hanging as the method to be employed.

We would further create tougher punishments for a variety of crimes. People who abuse domesticated animals – be it through violence or neglect – would incur the same punishment as those who abuse children, given that both are equally incapable of reason, but equally dependent on their guardians and capable of feeling pain; those who killed domesticated animals (excluding euthanasia by a veterinarian on grounds of compassion) could face a maximum prison sentence of 10 years. Abattoir workers found to be enacting excessive cruelty to the animals under their supervision would be permanently banned from working in slaughterhouses, and fined an amount up to £50,000.
Those individuals who financially abuse the elderly – be it salesmen who extort unwitting pensioners, family members who thieve money via their power of attorney, and so on – would be responsible for compensating the victim for double the amount taken, as well as facing a criminal charge for theft. Parents and guardians deemed to have permanently and substantially reduced the quality of life of their dependents would face prison sentences between 10 years and life imprisonment – this includes being the primary cause of mental or physical illness in a child, being excessively neglectful, or being dishonest to social services or some equivalent body to the extent where harm prevention was unable to adequately occur for a child.

Fascism firmly believes co-operation between nations is in the interest of world peace. Britain, at the time of writing, is engaged in antagonistic action and dialogue with other nations – namely, Iran, Syria, Russia, and North Korea. Despite the perceived failings of any of these leaderships, the 2000s showed the world through Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya that British/American “interventionism” (neo-liberal imperialism) was a catastrophic failure. Saddam crushed terrorism in his country – his elimination directly resulted in the creation of the Islamic State, a force many magnitudes deadlier and more destructive than Saddam’s regime. The Taliban banned opium production in Afghanistan and the world’s heroin supply dropped by ¾. Now the world is in the grip of the worst opioid epidemic it has ever seen. Gaddafi turned Libya into a wall between Europe and Africa. His death allowed the flood of millions of third-world migrants into Europe, destroying entire cultural centres of the West within years.
Thus, we cannot accept the consequentialist’s view, because Britain’s future has always been predicted incorrectly – or correctly, and still pursued by those in control, depending on one’s outlook. Instead, we should remain neutral towards all nonaggressor nations and seek to establish stronger diplomatic relations in the interest of trade and world peace.

The Fascist system of syndicalism, one of our core ideals, is designed so as to afford greater power to the workers over the policy pertaining to their occupational fields. The European Union’s C.J.E.U. supersedes the authority of any legal entity within a member nation, and is thus in direct contradiction of Fascist principles. In addition, the European Union has had a general disregard for culture, pursuing policy largely ignorant of the unique traditions and histories of each member nation and further turning several European nations into world capitals of crime, with enclaves of lawlessness scattered throughout, through a scandalous and ill-conceived attitude towards immigration. For this reason, we agree wholeheartedly with the European referendum result, and would seek to entirely detach ourselves legally from the E.U. whilst maintaining trade with European nations themselves.

We firmly believe every ethnic group on the planet deserves a geographical area, appropriate for their size, in which their traditions and culture (defining criteria of each ethnicity) are preserved. Britain is no different in this regard, and so our aim is to prevent cultural pockets emerging in the United Kingdom that are antithetical to the British way of life. In light of the recent events in Europe – namely Germany, France and Sweden – we believe it to be wholly unwise to pursue an immigration policy with a blanket accepting of refugees. Whilst their plight is tragic, the concerns of a British government must be the citizens of Britain, not the citizens of the world. Instead, Fascist foreign policy would serve as a preventative measure for future refugee crises, which is far better than a post-crisis ‘cure’.
We must furthermore ensure that only skilled, employable and non-criminal foreign individuals are eligible for citizenship. These individuals must belong to a culture compatible with the British way of life, and their citizenship must be conditional on geographic location as allocated by the government, in order to prevent subcultural pockets forming in Britain.
We would furthermore deport all foreign-born individuals convicted for terror offences in Britain, all those on the terror watch list, and preachers of extremist ideologies such as Wahhabism.

Our core values are our moral guide when forming policy. As such, there is one core value more fundamental to Fascism than any other: in modern-day Britain, all the needs of all the people must be met. Other core values include honesty to the electorate – a quality seldom observed in politicians; loyalty to the nation and the people over any other interest; a desire to amend, with urgent necessity, the myriad ills of British politics.

We define the axis as a scale whose domain, going from left to right, is the belief in absolute equality of outcome to the belief in absolute equality of opportunity. That is, communists on the farleft believe the same rewards must be afforded to each man and women irrespectively of the toils they have made in life; ultra-free market capitalists on the right believe that the state must only provide the people the means to fulfil their needs, and that it is herefore not the concern of the state if peoples’ needs remain unfulfilled.
Fascism cannot be placed on such an axis; our ideology awards all people the opportunity the prosper, whilst catching those who metaphorically ‘fall through the net’, and does so without disincentivising hard work through redistribution of the products of the toils of others. Fascism does not tend towards one ‘wing’ of the axis more than the other, and moreover, our key policies are not derived from any existing ideologies and thus have no fixed position on the axis.

Our vision of Britain’s future is one we believe all Britons shall cohesively and willingly work towards: a Britain in which every individual’s needs are met, and a Britain in which every individual possesses the power they rightfully deserve.
We have already defined the needs of the people, and expressed with supreme clarity how we wish to facilitate the fulfilment of these. We have explained our system of syndicalism, and how it shall empower each individual with respect to their skill and expertise in some field. Thus, we present a vision of the future that can and must be achieved. This is in stark contrast to the two parties: the Labour party present an unachievable Utopic vision whose foundations are laid in policies repeatedly shown to fail; the Conservative party present no vision of Britain’s future at all, beyond empty rhetoric and uninspired cliché.

We believe marijuana should be legalised and regulated. For industry, marijuana produces hemp-based bioplastics – less environmentally-harmful and less finite polymers. As most plastics are currently derived from crude oil, developing the efficiency of bioplastic production would both reduce our national dependence on foreign produce – including ending a large portion of British financial contribution to the terror-supporting Gulf oil states – and reduce the harm we make as a nation to the environment via landfill sites and ocean dumping. Furthermore, cannabis contains many cannabinoids that have been scientifically proven to effectively combat cancer cells. On a recreational level, cannabis consumption causes less injuries per capita and kills fewer brain cells than alcohol consumption.

The fasces (an axe, with rods bound around it) are the main symbol associated with Fascism – indeed, they are the root of the ideology’s name – and represent the state (the axe) bound together with the sectional interests of the nation (the rods) to become something greater than the sum of its parts: more sustainable; more strong; more powerful.
The flash and circle logo represents unity (the circle around the logo) and action (the lightning bolt symbol in the centre).

newbritishunion.co.uk
newbritishunion.co.uk
newbritishunion.co.uk

Attached: 1200px-Flag_of_the_British_Union_of_Fascists.svg.png (1200x600, 25K)

Attached: 1504835465461.jpg (559x553, 45K)

END THE TYRANNY

Oi, you got a license to be sayin these things?

Attached: Show yer license.jpg (460x288, 69K)

Also, just want you to know your group is a pathetic disgrace to the name of Mosely and, according to those scrolling images, you either couldn't be bothered or don't haven't had the resources to change your website since 2016.