Essential Truths – The Ethics of Funding Nationalism

By Max Musson:

In the articles I have so far published in this Essential Truths series, I have outlined a radical new strategy for British nationalism, which will overcome the limitations that have crippled our movement to date, through the acquisition of what I term the ‘Six Prerequisites’.

LeadershipIn the most recent article, I have argued the necessity for a fund raising programme capable of providing the funds necessary for the acquisition of the first five of the Six Prerequisites, and capable of providing us with a ‘war-chest’, a fund of money sufficient for us to mount a credible challenge to the existing corrupt regime, and secure sovereign political power. My argument is that without the Six Prerequisites, no nationalist organisation can achieve sovereign political power, irrespective of the methods, the strategies or the tactics employed.

Furthermore, in that most recent article I have asserted that, “When a political organisation sets its membership dues at just £30 per annum, what that organisation is doing is the equivalent of inviting you to go for a slap-up, no expenses spared night out at the Savoy, on a budget of just twenty-pounds. They are in effect telling you that there is no realistic prospect of them ever achieving power, and that everything you and they may do together, may fool you into feeling better, but it will not make a blind bit of difference to the eventual fate of our people, of your children or your children’s children. Everything you will do with that organisation will ultimately be a fatuous waste of time”, and not surprisingly, this assertion has ruffled a few feathers among those who are determined to continue bashing their heads against the ‘brick wall’ of traditional nationalist campaign tactics.

Some of the critics have accused us at Western Spring of trying to demotivate nationalists, when in reality it is obvious that our aim is nothing of the sort, but simply a determined effort to get nationalists to stop pursuing tactics that have since time immemorial continually failed and adopt new tactics that offer the prospect of success.

These people concede that their tactics have continually failed in the past, but they argue that such tactics might succeed in the future. They speak of economic collapse changing the ‘rules of the game’, and spend their time searching the horizons and waiting for the approach of that fabled ‘cataclysmic economic meltdown’ that never comes. The same economic disaster that Karl Marx predicted more that 100 years ago, which would bring about the collapse of capitalism, and that Oswald Mosley predicted more than seventy years ago, and which these people are still waiting for – as if ‘waiting for Godot’ – the much anticipated event that never comes.

These people apparently do not realise that we in the West are living through a period of very carefully managed decline. There are the occasional ‘disasters’ like the ‘credit crunch’, but these are deliberately contrived ‘disasters’ that disguise the process of transferring wealth out of the hands of the common people of the Western nations and into the hands of the plutocratic oligarks who manipulate political events from behind the scenes. Too much money is involved for anyone to actually let these ‘crises’ get out of control.

We nationalists cannot wait for the cataclysmic crisis that might or might not transform our fortunes for the better, because it might never come, and even if it does, it may not come in time to save us from racial oblivion. We must contrive events ourselves so that we are in control of our fate and can succeed irrespective of the economics of the day.

Other critics have conceded that the Six Prerequisites are absolutely essential for our success, but have argued that they do not believe the acquisition of those prerequisites is practically possible.

Such people argue that because the Six Prerequisites are unobtainable, we instead should continue campaigning in vain, in the traditional way, presumably in the hope that either God or the magic fairy will intervene and save us at the eleventh hour.

Their criticisms are:

1) That £100 million is a preposterously large sum of money, and could never be raised;

2) We will never get the target 300,000 people needed to sponsor our movement;

3) That nationalists are all poor people who cannot afford to donate £30 per month;

4) That we can’t expect poor people to make substantial regular contributions and that we should instead seek out and depend upon large donations from wealthy people;

5) That people will never trust us with hundreds of millions of pounds and that our scheme looks like a ‘ponzi’ scheme because it provides for the remuneration of those people who are actively recruiting others into our movement.

So, let me tackle these criticisms in the order listed above.

Funding 2Firstly, £100 million is by most people’s standards a mind-bogglingly large amount of money and I can easily see why, in comparison with the modest amounts of funding raised by nationalist organizations in the past, people might question if it is an amount that is feasible to raise.

My answer is that if we can attract 300,000 members, sponsoring us for an average amount of £30 per month, then (300,000 x 12 x £30 = £100 million) it would not just be possible to raise such a sum once we could raise that amount every year, year after year, until we eventually overwhelm our enemies. The critical factor here is that we are able to attract 300,000 members.

Those who question the feasibility of recruiting 300,000 members point to the fact that no other nationalist movement in British history has been able to amass even 10% of that membership figure. If the likes of the great Sir Oswald Mosley was not able to attract that many members in the 1930s, they argue, how are we ‘lessor mortals’ to achieve that today?

My answer is that nationalist organisations of the past and present have traditionally relied unduly upon part-time activists, who are overwhelmingly amateurs in the art of persuasion. Such people will not have had the time or skills necessary to recruit at an adequate rate. The system that we at Western Spring advocate places emphasis on the need for our key activists to be full-time professionals. We need first to recruit 600+ people with the passion and determination necessary to succeed in this endeavour, and to train them in the art of persuasion.

Six-hundred recruitment activists recruiting just two people per week over a five year period, will result in a membership of 300,000 people, and I have proven that it is possible to recruit two people per week from traditional prospecting methods.

This scheme can therefore work, and all that is required is that people who want to see salvation and self-determination for our people, come forward and sign up, either as recruiters or as donors.

During the last European elections, the BNP attracted 90,000 votes. If just one in three of those people were to come forward today and pledge their support for our scheme, we would have that £100 million pounds in just twelve months time. Furthermore, even if £100 million is not enough, we would potentially raise £600 million by the general election after next and could realistically expect to see a Western Spring, Movement of National Salvation government by 2020.

CommunityOur detractors claim that nationalists are all poor people, who in the main could not afford to spare £30 per month, and while I accept this is so in many cases, there are also a lot of nationalists who can afford much more than £30 per month and we have already demonstrated a £30 per month average over all, with less well off people donating smaller amounts and with better off people donating more. In some cases, much, much more.

Some of our detractors argue that we should not expect poorer people to contribute more than a nominal amount and that we should rely for the bulk of our funding upon large contributions from wealthy members. However, this is to fall into the trap of the establishment parties, and is the primary reason we are as a nation in the mess we are.

There is an old adage, that ‘he who pays the piper, calls the tune’, and this means that if a party or a movement relies unduly on the largesse of a few very wealthy donors, we cannot be surprised when that party becomes corrupted and implements policies that reward the rich to the detriment of the poor. If we want government that implements policies for the benefit of our nation as a whole, then we must have a system of funding in which everyone gives, no matter how poor.

Obviously we should, as we do, apply the principle of the ‘Widow’s mite’, in which the wealthy few pay proportionately more, while the poor pay proportionately less, but if everyone pays a similar amount proportionate to their incomes, then every member will have the dignity of knowing that they are playing their part in full and not being carried by the charity of their comrades, and our movement will avoid the possibility of being uncorrupted by the selfishness of a wealthy few.

Some of our detractors have argued that our funding scheme is a ‘Ponzi’ scheme, because it provides for the remuneration of the recruiters, and they claim that we will therefore not win the trust of enough potential sponsors. However this argument is flawed in several respects and merely reflects a lack of financial worldliness on the part of the individuals concerned.

Firstly, a ‘Ponzi’ scheme is a “fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned by the operator. Operators of Ponzi schemes usually entice new investors by offering higher returns than other investments, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to sustain the scheme.”

As you will grasp from the above quotation, a Ponzi scheme plays upon the greed of investors who hope to make abnormally high investment gains, and whose hope and greed in this respect is sufficient to overcome any natural wariness or scepticism they might have exercised. Furthermore a Ponzi scheme is set up in such a way that the money raised is diverted for the benefit of one individual or a small group of individuals who conspire to operate the scheme.

The Western Spring funding scheme however does not promise financial returns and therefore does not play upon the greed of those who contribute. In completing our application form, new members are instead required to sign a declaration stating, “I agree to make regular donations of the amount shown below without any expectation of pecuniary return”. That is, any money donated is, as one would expect, a ‘gift’, and not an ‘investment’, and furthermore, whereas a Ponzi scheme aims to deprive someone of their money through deceit, we act quite honestly and make our donors aware from the very outset that they are making a gift.

Secondly, while a Ponzi scheme is operated in such a way as to enrich either one individual operator or a small group of operators, at the expense of gullible investors, our scheme directs the majority of the money collected into a trustee managed fund from which capital projects can be funded and distributes the remainder, but still a large proportion of the money collected, to fund the political activism of the individual recruitment activists.

Once our scheme comes to fruition therefore, the money collected will both build up a central fund for projects involving significant capital expenditure, and will at the same time distribute approximately 50% but over time dropping to c.35% of the money raised to fund those 600 to 1000 activists in the ‘front line’, leading and managing our enclave communities, conducting outreach programmes, political campaigns and recruiting new members.

Revolution 3Each of these full-time activists will on average be responsible for the recruitment of, and for managing the retention of 300 donor members. A substantial task, which will probably mean that they will need to employ the services of a personal assistant and I anticipate that this will suit husband and wife teams. With £35 million of the £100 million raised each year channelled into supporting the full-time activist’s political activism, this means that each activist will receive on average £35,000 to £50,000 per annum. This will not be ‘money that goes straight into their back pockets’, as some cynics have suggested, but an income stream from which all of their operating costs, providing for the upkeep of themselves and their families, but also covering the costs of maintaining an office, providing office equipment, buying stationery, hiring halls, organising functions and putting petrol in their cars etc., must be met.

Such a level of funding is very modest by comparison with the salary and perks paid to MPs at Westminster, and positively dwarfed by the massive salaries and perks paid to MEPs in Brussels. No one is going to be getting rich from our scheme and indeed our recruitment activists are selected from people who are already committed nationalists and this is seen very much a vocational endeavour rather than a lucrative career path.

Finally, we must consider what might happen if things do not develop as we might initially have hoped. It is possible that our activists will not be as successful at recruitment as we would have hoped and that they only manage to attract one tenth of the numbers we envisage at this stage.

Should this happen, we will still generate £10 million pounds per annum, and amount several times larger than the BNP managed in it’s best year of fund raising and that will still be enough to make us the most successful nationalist movement in this nation’s history. More to the point, it will be enough to ensure the survival of many of our racial comrades in secure enclaves, no matter what happens in the rest of the country, and may still be enough for us to eventually succeed in saving our nation as a whole.

What would happen if the current management team at Western Spring all decided to throw in the towel and admit defeat?

Our constitution states unequivocally that in the event of our movement being disbanded, the funds and assets that exist at that time must be transferred to another similar organization, with similar aims. The trustees cannot personally profit from any such capital surplus, and nor can any of the individual members.

Therefore, my brothers and sisters, I now address the matter of what you have to lose and what you have to gain.

If you don’t join Western Spring, you will be £1 per day better of than if you do, but you will lose any hope of national salvation, you will lose any hope for a better future for your children and you will ultimately be denied a White posterity, because race mixing will inevitably engulf your blood-line.

If you do join, you will be £1 per day worse off than you are now, but you will secure a White posterity, you will secure a future for your children and grandchildren and ensure the salvation of your people.

Ours is an immense undertaking, unprecedented in our nation’s history. So much depends on us and the decisions we make today.

What will you decide?

By Max Musson © 2014

# # # #

Essential Truths

Essential Truths – The First Prerequisite

Essential Truths – The Second Prerequisite

Essential Truths – The Third Prerequisite

Essential Truths – The Fourth Prerequisite

Essential Truths – The Fifth Prerequisite

Essential Truths – The Sixth Prerequisite

# # # #

7 thoughts on “Essential Truths – The Ethics of Funding Nationalism

    1. It’s more than reasonable, it is the most radicle new strategy to hit British nationalism in 70 years and its going to carry us to power!

  1. I like your plan Max, and to argue that it is not worthwhile is hard. Having a large base of active nationalists, well funded and able to help retake towns legally and via traditional methods of purchase and electioneering is wonderful. But I do believe that more important than financially stable donors, we need sincere, able bodied, brave and dedicated young men, led by body a capable and fanatical Nationalist leaders. Such men, even if only able to afford no more than the clothes they wear would be capable of so much more than money could achieve.
    I know we would have to tread carefully and while in the early stages of small numbers we would have to abide by draconian laws but I am convinced that all the money in the world could leave us out in the cold while all the steel and fire we could muster could grant us the earth.

    1. I like your attitude SS, but there is an old adage, that an army marches on its stomach, and many a battle has been lost because an army overstretched it’s lines of supply and deteriorated into a body of tired, cold and hungry men, incapable of fighting at their best.

      1. That’s is true, I do hope a street army will be funded when things get going. Perhaps National Action if they keep on, there are many other groups of course but so many of them are infiltrated by enemy elements as to make it unworkable.
        I think having an intelligence service is vital, anyone given a position of responsibility could then be vetted along with anyone who seems to be intent on trouble causing as is endemic in our street movements. I am sure there are those amongst us who have experience of intelligence gathering, who could head up the beginnings of such a group.

  2. The other fiasco that must be avoided at all costs is a repeat of the BNP list leak.
    That did a lot of damage too, putting people off to signing up to anything.

  3. Brin of the family Jenkins

    - Edit

    I was one of the BNP County organisers in that period, and then BNP had the grave misfortune of employing a gentleman with a proven fundraising record. Great care needs to be exercised, I got caught very badly with a blatant lie donating a substantial sum to his lie. Milking members with begging letters on a weekly basis can not work for very long, he’s long gone but the damage lingers with many good Nationalists who felt disenchanted.

    With membership leaks the BNP’s leak was professionally organised, I feel this was one of wikyleaks more shameful episodes and although the list was obtained illegally no one was ever prosecuted for misusing it.

Comments are closed.