Essential Truths – The Fourth Prerequisite

By Max Musson:

Moment-HollywoodAs has been exposed on many occasions by many nationalist writers, the mass media throughout the Western world is overwhelmingly owned and/or controlled by Zionist Jewry and is used as a weapon in their hands to skew the public perception of events to their advantage and in order to advance the Zionist political agenda towards a world of Zionist Jewish hegemony.

The propaganda output to that end is often subtle, but it is all pervasive, affecting almost every genre of news article, broadcast journalism, fictional writing, stage production, music, film production or television drama, to such an extent that it is the foremost factor determining the beliefs and worldview of the average citizen of our Western nations.

Most people pride themselves on having an ‘open mind’, drawing information from a wide range of sources in order to form ‘balanced’ opinions that are in keeping with the vast array of scientific and empirical knowledge and philosophical analysis around them and in the past it was possible for them to make such a claim about themselves with a considerable degree of justification. While a disproportionate Zionist influence has existed within the mass media throughout living memory, the grip exercised by organized Jewry was until the quite recent past nowhere near as strong, nor as all pervasive as it is today.

People Going to Work 1950During the early 20th Century, the average working man would rise and converse with his wife and children, perhaps about the headlines in an independent newspaper before heading off for work. He would leave the house in time to walk or cycle to work and as he progressed along his journey to work he would encounter his neighbours and work colleagues also on their way to work. He would walk or cycle the same route, or perhaps catch the same bus or train, but on the way to work, he and his companions on that journey would similarly discuss the events of the day as reported in the newspapers, or on the radio, and our average working man would be exposed to perhaps ten different opinions expressed by real people, his folk comrades, before even reaching his workplace.

As the working day passed, he would hold various conversations with workmates, with his boss, or with his customers and the journey home from work would, just like the journey to work, be a further opportunity to draw upon the opinions of real people, some of similar circumstances to his own, and some occupying a higher or lower station in life.

In addition to the views of politicians, clergymen, trade unionists, sports people etc., that he might read in the newspaper or listen to on the radio, our average workman might listen to the differing views of perhaps another forty to fifty people each day, and in addition to this, our man might visit the local library where there were still many books written by the great intellectuals of that time and from the past, all expressing a range of differing views and opinions on the great issues of the day.

Today however, our average working man rises in the morning and is more likely to listen to breakfast TV news before leaving home earlier than before, perhaps without having any kind of meaningful conversation with his wife or family, to make the torturously slow car journey to work through the rush hour traffic, enclosed within his mobile tin box, listening to the radio and the views expressed by radio newscasters and DJs.

Media BrainwashingAt work, the individual might occupy an enclosed workstation and only communicate with others by telephone or by email, in which case the opportunity for conversation will be limited. Having then travelled home again, alone in his car, our Mr Average might then spend his evening watching television, and in place of the fifty independent viewpoints he might have been exposed to each day in the past, he may instead be exposed to fifty ‘opinions’ expressed by news casters, TV commentators, and the characters that appear in his favourite TV soap operas.

What such people are often not consciously aware of nowadays, is that the fifty opinions they hear expressed by the various characters that feature on TV, or the radio, or in their daily newspaper, are not ‘fifty’ different opinions at all. They will instead be the views and opinions of the small number of media moguls who edit our news media and control program production on radio and television throughout the world. Thus the opinions of the media moguls are not just one voice among many, they constitute in fact, probably 90% of the opinions that an individual may now hear and their influence upon the public is as great as if 90% of the population all held those same views.

With such tremendous bias in the mass media it is easy to understand how the entire culture of a nation can become distorted as psychologists have demonstrated many times that most people tend to conform to the environment in which they find themselves. Only a small proportion of people, perhaps as little as 2.5%, have such a strong sense of personal authority that they are able to maintain and actively express a point of view that is contrary to the prevailing political orthodoxy. The vast majority of the population may not agree with the political orthodoxy, and if sat down in a safe neutral environment may sincerely express views that are diametrically opposed to the prevailing political orthodoxy, but they will lack the courage to express those views in the face of official opprobrium and will instead publicly parrot establishment mantras and allow themselves to be cowed into acting in accordance with establishment diktats.

Media Brainwashing 2Of course, there will be experienced cognitive dissonance because of the yawning chasm between the logical processes of their minds and the actions they take, but most people will comfort themselves by rationalising away such contradictions – thus the lifelong Labour voter will justified his continued electoral support for Labour, despite being passionately anti-immigration, by convincing himself that Conservative economic policies will do far more harm to our nation than immigration and therefore he must vote Labour to keep the Tories out.

Furthermore, heaven forbid that he should asign greater weight to the issues of race and immigration as that would set him aside from the rest of ‘decent’ society and make him a ‘racist’, and he wouldn’t want to do anything that might be considered illegal, or that might incur public opprobrium and lose him his job. He’d rather see his only daughter marry a Pakistani and thereby sacrifice his entire posterity, and that of all his forebears going back to the beginning of time, than do something illegal and risk losing his job!

Clearly a recognition of the above demonstrates without a doubt why we nationalists must acquire our own mass media if we are to ever succeed, and we must take steps to shield our people from the worst of the Zionist mass media, to which they are currently exposed.

Firstly, we must take steps to protect existing nationalists and their families by facilitating the creation of localized communities in which we, as much as is possible, control the culture. This will not alter the current output of the mass media, but if we can create White nationalist enclaves within which a counter culture exists, which discourages reliance upon radio and TV for entertainment and news broadcasting purposes, the influence of the Zionist mass media will be greatly diminished.

Internet 2Secondly, we must place great emphasis on creating a massive internet based counter culture, that does not focus simply on political output, but also provides information and entertainment resources that can rival those currently provides by broadcast radio and TV companies. We need nationalists to create online radio stations producing plays, music programmes, and news bulletins 24/7, with such reliability that the public can come to rely on their output. We need nationalists to establish online ‘TV’ stations offering a wide range of video and live streaming output, again with such regularity and reliability that the public can come to rely on it.

We at Western Spring would like to hear from nationalists who are interested in establishing online media services of this sort. Media studies is a very popular subject at university nowadays and it has been estimated that the number of media studies graduates outnumbers the availability of traditional media vacancies by about 200:1. There should be an immense number of frustrated media studies graduates therefore, itching to progress careers that are currently going nowhere. The same can be said of journalism and information technology. Let them come to us! Anyone wishing to discuss a media project should email me at the address shown below.

Lastly, we must aim to acquire control of a major TV broadcast company and this is one of the reason why the Western Spring funding programme is so important. No new TV company trying to get established will have the clout to acquire the necessary broadcast licences in the face of competition from the established media companies. If we are to have a broadcast TV company on our side at some point in the future it will therefore be necessary for us to gain control of an existing TV company that already has those licences

Media CompaniesTV companies are invariably public limited companies that have been floated on the stock market, as this is the primary means by which the original entrepreneurs crystalise the great wealth that is derived from the ownership of such enterprises. This Plc status means that we will as a result of our funding programme, eventually be able to buy large blocks of shares such that a point will be reached when we will have a ‘controlling share’.

Once we have a controlling share it will be possible to exercise the influence needed to subtly change TV programme content so that output begins to support the values underpinning nationalism and becomes critical of multi-culti political correctness.

In order that this is not immediately detected by our political enemies, and steps taken to limit our control, the changes required will need to be introduced at an almost imperceptible rate, while at the same time we gradually remove from office and replace, anyone who presents a serious challenge to our authority. We will need to present an insidious, but none-the-less irresistible force.

I believe that all of the above can be achieved within ten years, possibly five, but the speed with which we advance will be limited by the rate at which fellow nationalists join us.

We nationalists have three choices; to continue beating our heads against the side of a ballot box, in the knowledge that over forty other nationalist movements have achieved nothing but failure by that method; to give up completely and resign ourselves to racial oblivion; or to declare your support for what we at Western Spring are trying to achieve.

Therefore my brothers and sisters, the ball is in your court and I would urge you to answer our call, to email me max.musson@hotmail.co.uk without delay.

Once we have acquired the Six Prerequisites, of which a nationalist media is the fourth, we shall be in an immensely powerful position, a position that all nationalist movements of the past can have only dreamed of, and we will for the first time be a truly unstoppable force. Please help us make this dream come true!

By Max Musson © 2014

# # # #

See also:

Essential Truths

Essential Truths – The First Prerequisite

Essential Truths – The Second Prerequisite

Essential Truths – The Third Prerequisite

Essential Truths – The Fifth Prerequisite

Essential Truths – The Sixth Prerequisite

Essential Truths – The Ethics of Funding Nationalism

# # # #

13 thoughts on “Essential Truths – The Fourth Prerequisite

  1. Mr Musson,

    I have tried to email you about submitting articles to Western Spring, but I haven’t received a reply – I am unsure if the email I am using (maxmusson@hotmail.co.uk) – is the correct one.

    Yours,

    JB

  2. Valhalla Valkyrie

    - Edit

    Firstly the most popular media platform in the UK is the effectively state run BBC

    Secondly mass media is generally on the decline as people can search online for their content. Into the future the importance of owning a media platform like a television station will be less important as people can find all kinds of content on the web.

    What is important is investing in making content rather than investing it in an existing platform where you would inevitably come into conflict with the ‘creative’ types who have their own agenda. Well produced videos that can become viral through social media such as shown through “Anti-racist Hitler” and “No future for White Children” can reach large audiences without the need for investing money on media platform.

    There’s too much money involved for what your getting trying to change mainstream media. If the content is good enough people will watch content produced by “White Media” produced by people who are motivated to produce pro-White media.

    1. I can understand why you feel the way you do VV, however the vast bulk of our population have not seen , let alone been swayed by the videos you mention. They have ‘gone viral’ among White nationalists, but not among the general public who still base their opinions on the material broadcast by the mainstream media. Furthermore, it is the mainstream media that determines the prevailing culture and the politico-cultural milieu in which we live. Individual videos cannot do this, and this is why we need to have access to that broadcast capability.
      .
      Naturally, if this situation changes, and it might well do in future, the need for us to control a TV company will diminish, but we will still need a massive internet presence if we are to shape the politico-cultural milieu in which we live.

      1. Valhalla Valkyrie

        - Edit

        I don’t agree with it because I see money being invested in areas that are not needed. The videos are not viewed by White Nationalists only but by millions of people especially the young. The middle aged and old are the ones watching TV, the youth (who have not become demoralised) are on the Internet. People only have so many hours in the day to view media so if you want to make an impact with the kind of money you are talking about it is better to invest in content production and focus on quality over quantity.

        The notion of having our own TV station would of been good 20 or 10 years ago but with the rise of the internet television is becoming an ever redundant medium. If your aim is to be in a better position in 30 to 40 years (2044-2054) then what will be the importance of television by then? As well as viewership falling those that still watch the content increasingly watch those programmes at a later date online.

        If you want to operate a modern TV station then you are going to want to provide a catch up service. Thus what is the point of spending money on a live broadcasting platform when people are just going to view programmes online? When the need for a live broadcasting platform is less then you don’t have to aim to produce large amounts of content to keep the rolling channel going but can concentrate your resources on providing quality.

        Unless you have the budget to make consistent, high quality programming (which run into the 100’s of millions and require income by advertisers/TV license) then Joe public will watch ‘X-Factor’ or ‘The Voice’.

        “output begins to support the values underpinning nationalism and becomes critical of multi-culti political correctness.

        In order that this is not immediately detected by our political enemies, and steps taken to limit our control, the changes required will need to be introduced at an almost imperceptible rate, while at the same time we gradually remove from office and replace, anyone who presents a serious challenge to our authority.”

        Whether you plan on taking 5 years or 20 years to gradually change the content towards Nationalism are enemies will notice. Cultural Marxism subverts society, they don’t notice it. However our enemies are not going to be subverted by pro-Nationalism content.

        My biggest issue underpinning this is that it does not consider enough how staff from the current company won’t move elsewhere and rehiring new staff (as there is a high staff turnover in Boradcasting). The personnel of broadcasting/media companies are the most valuable assets to the business as together they produce the content that brings in the viewers and thus advertising money. Such a venture relies on your staff, which would be disproportionately young and left wing to play a long with this. If a strong rumour goes round that something is up they will jump ship as they have a political disagreement and to protect their future careers. Thus the people you would be relying on in this venture are some of the most unreliable people a Nationalist could rely upon. Broadcasting is not not all that far away from the National Union Of Journalists, and we know where their loyalties are.

        My last point concerning content is there is already lots of content that resonates Nationalist sentiments, loyalty to people, racial homogeneity and so on already on television but it does not change the publics’ behaviour. Unless you control the majority of media content then people will generally ‘consume’ content and not think much of it. If anything content subtly supporting traditional, Nationalistic values will just provide escapism to people where they can live in a fantasy world for an hour every week than an urge for action. Programs like ‘Games of Thrones’ I believe resonates some Nationalistic vibes but it does not change peoples views, in fact it is very popular with the multicultural young.

        1. You are right, V.V., we will need to be flexible in our approach and ready to adapt to meet whatever challenges might occur, if we are to be successful.
          .
          The key at present is not to visualise too rigidly the way our strategies might play out tactically. There are all manner of possibilities that might or might not transpire. As they say, ‘the first casualty of battle is the initial battle plan’, and this is why we must keep our approach as flexible as possible.

  3. Regarding the media and our part in it, I cannot see much wrong with trying our hand at it (by hook or by crook) on-line….in practice and as part of gaining presence, audiences, experience; not to mention encouraging people to try and make some really professional documentaries and discussion shows or other content that will explore our issues sensibly and not sensationally.
    .
    I think it would be an advantage to have people with a grasp of media software and audio/video skills from the outset……but I am not sure as to how many of those such people we have in our ranks at the present time.
    .
    Looking around the internet, it seems to me that an internet TV station, complete with a pre-programmed schedule, could be hosted quite easily on an existing service host – and, if anybody had even basic experience with programs like Adobe After Effects, I know that there are literally thousands of templates around which could be custom altered to provide “segues” and other animated graphics suitable for professional looking intervals between program slots.
    .
    I have even seen paid-hosting/providers that claim you can queue Youtube content as part of a schedule, not to mention self-broadcast live from various locations if need be. Therefore, I think that something could be “knocked up” with existing templates, providers and content if enough time and patience was dedicated to it from somebody who could use them proficiently.
    .
    The only problems I would see with internet TV at the moment is that there are literally thousands and thousands of such TV stations out there competing for attention – much like websites compete for attention.
    .
    With mainstream TV on your regular freeview, you have, perhaps 100 channels – which is competitive enough – but on the internet, building a regular audience and achieving a notorious presence is not going to be so easy.
    .
    The other aspect is of course the actual hosting itself.
    .
    During my brief look around, I have not seen many ‘terms and conditions’ which would render our output as a cause for termination of contract (for use of their services) – however – in an ideal world we would construct our own dedicated servers and buy or create our own programs for providing/broadcasting an internet TV station.
    .
    (This is because we know pressure would be put on such providers to desist hosting our station).
    .
    The third is the content itself. I think careful consideration would have to be given to the tone and content of the station and be much more than a Youtube player on stilts, or a glorified version of a nationalist radio show.
    .
    The content would ideally need to be first rate – such as coverage of NPI and Amren conferences, documentary pieces like “A conversation about race”, London Forum and Traditional Britain meetings (where the video and audio quality has been good), and maybe things like a history slot giving brief critiques and exposes of our ideological opponents and praise and insight into our supportive crutches.
    .
    Some of you may remember when the BNP started to do discussions like a panel show, hosted and filmed with the European Parliament’s equipment in their media room. They were of a decent audio visual quality and had a laid back format that worked quite well.
    .
    I could easily picture that kind of content being aired, as well as a kind of “RT” style collage of news, cultural insights (craft, technology, music,finance) and such to give variety to the usual Youtube kind of content and break up the monotony of ‘strictly nationalist’ output that can become quite tedious (and certainly not what non-dedicated nationalists would tune in to).
    .
    Perhaps I am too picky, but if an internet TV station was to be set up – I am not currently sure how a 24/7 timetable could be filled with such suitable content at the moment. Repeats are an option, but they could only be done ‘so far’ without annoying people.
    .
    However, what I may deem suitable may not be what others deem it to be! Like websites and other things, it does come down to personal choice and personal interests.

    1. It might be easier to establish a presence than you fear. If a substantial proportion of nationalist and other websites and blogs had an advert for it, i.e. a link, it could work, though of course there are some large egos out there. Come to think of it, if poor J Bowden were still alive, he could have had a weekly piece; and no doubt been a big draw. There are others out there; RamZPaul has a regular slot in the Occidental Observer. There could be interviewers, reporters, news. Maybe a lottery winner could give it a go, and actually pay people.

  4. Mike Newland

    - Edit

    The mainstream media is moving online gradually.

    They then find that their attraction is as much the reader’s comments as the articles. This puts them in a spot. They end up having to reflect public opinion far better than before.

    Gone are the days when no paper would touch even a letter about immigration or a host of other things.

    Then there a host of foreign outlets like RT and of course YouTube which allows almost anything.

    A creeping effect.

  5. I personally think a mainstream TV station will be a waste of money! Only old White people watch the Zio-box. The young, as far as I can tell, are almost all on the Internet.

    I hate the concept of manipulating people through the Culture Industry, but we have to do it. The Jews do it, don’t they? We need a plethora of artists, writers, musicians, poets, fashion designers — all of them, to seep our our ideas into the mainstream. Let the masses think we are cool; get them to follow; get them to wake up!

    I agree with that part, at least….

  6. I see that our wonderful regulatory authorities appear to have foreseen the dangers of free access to online rolling media content. The online magazine and slightly odd conspiratorial quirksters, UK Column, have had all their YT videos removed by ATVOD (The Authority for Television On Demand) demand for running an unauthorised online TV on demand channel, as they have chosen to categorise it. What surprises, is not so much the removal, but YouTube’s compliance with it, as a US based company in a country of free speech principles. Oh, yes and then I woke up. It’s Google..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p0zP0ATo15w

    Worth pondering as the options for this medium with a growing reach accelerates. I assume that ATVOD either has, or will have, a code of conduct and responsible broadcasting requirement that prevents ethno-centric programming reaching too many eyes.

Comments are closed.