By Max Musson:
As we enter a new year we are all given to thoughts of renewing our efforts with regard to our given field of endeavour and as nationalists, with the news of Nick Griffin’s bankruptcy fresh in our minds, and in anticipation of the potential support that could materialise for UKIP in the forthcoming European elections, there has been much speculation of late with regard to what 2014 may bring.
Bearing in mind the collapse of support for the BNP from one-time party activists in particular, and the expected collapse in support for the party following last weeks bankruptcy proceedings, Nick Griffin is unlikely to be re-elected as an MEP in the North West and the BNP are widely expected to do badly at the polls this year.
Nick Griffin’s bankruptcy has been heralded by supporters of the British Democratic Party (BDP), as a significant ‘shot in the arm’ regarding their potential electoral fortunes, particularly as it raises once again the possibility of a complete and utter collapse of support for Griffin, and a much hoped for transfer of members from the BNP to the BDP.
In my opinion, any boost for the BDP from the continued decline of the BNP will not be significant, as most of the members and activists shed by the BNP in recent years have dropped out of active politics, preferring to wait for a new organisation with new ideas, new policies and new tactics to fully emerge.
The BNP is unlikely to collapse completely and the great likelihood is that with its membership further reduced, it will continue as a ‘lame duck’ party, blocking the path for any new racial nationalist party that might be formed, and serving as a ‘road block’ preventing a revival of electoral fortunes for the National Front (NF).
The BDP does not position itself as a full on ‘racial nationalist’ party however, but in taking the slightly more ‘moderate’ route, pits itself more directly in contention with UKIP than the BNP would have ever been. As such, the BDP will find UKIP an even greater obstacle to their progress than the floundering BNP, and the BDP really have no place to go.
The great likelihood therefore, is that Andrew Brons, like Nick Griffin, will lose his MEP seat in May and I suspect that while he may soldier on to some extent within the BDP as a ‘grandee’ of that party, he will largely take a back seat and retire from active politics.
From an electoral standpoint therefore, this leaves us with UKIP as the sole party, embodying any kind of nationalist sentiment, that has any hope of making electoral gains this year, and I expect they will increase their tally of MEPs, taking the seats formerly occupied by Griffin and Brons and perhaps a few more.
In light of the above, should we nationalists take heart from the anticipated advances to be made by UKIP and should we regard these as indicative of a groundswell of support, which could yet see a future UKIP government at Westminster emerge as the saviour of our nation?
Some commentators would argue that if the electoral successes of the BNP up until 2010 were a cause of hope for nationalists, then surely the current popularity of UKIP and the potential for them to dwarf the achievements of the BNP should be celebrated as a significant improvement in nationalist political fortunes. However this is sadly not so.
While the mass media do not have absolute control over public opinion, they do exercise enough influence to ensure that political parties they oppose experience only sporadic and limited electoral success.
Many studies have shown that public opinion is largely molded by the mass media and by television in particular.
While in the past, an individual might expect to interact in conversation with perhaps as many as fifty different people every day, and therefore be exposed to fifty different opinions, each held by people who were their social equals, today an individual may routinely complete his or her working day, having had a meaningful conversation about the state of the nation with as few as two or three other people, or perhaps not at all.
In the past an individual might set off for work on foot and on the way to work meet neighbours and other friends with whom they would have conversed on their way.
At work, before the days of mechanisation and computers, such individuals might have spent their day talking to work mates and colleagues, and at the end of the day, might have conversed with friends on the walk back, perhaps stopping off at the local pub for a ‘swift half’ and more conversation before finally going home.
Such an individual nowadays may watch the news on breakfast television and go to work by car. At 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 travelled home alone in their car, an individual might then spent his or her evening watching television, and in place of the fifty viewpoints they might have been exposed to each day in the past, they might instead be exposed to the opinions of perhaps fifty of the characters that appear in their favourite soap opera on television.
What people are often not consciously aware of, nowadays, is that the ‘fifty’ opinions they hear expressed by the characters they have become familiar with on television are not ‘fifty’ different opinions at all. They will instead be fifty slight variations of the opinions of the small number of media moguls who control programme production on 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 individuals may now hear and their influence upon such individuals is as great as if 90% of an individuals close friends, relatives and neighbours all held those same views.
As we know, the mass media throughout the world is overwhelmingly owned and/or controlled by Zionist Jews. Individuals who have very particular needs, desires and wants, and whose priorities and whose agenda are often entirely different to those of non-Jews.
As we also know, Jews generally exhibit a profound antipathy towards the nationalisms of we Europeans and have a preference for multicultural and multiracial societies, and these attitudes stem from a rabid paranoia that White nationalists, even those that begin as Judaeophile, will inevitably gravitate towards some expression of anti-Semitism.
While the mass media do not dominate public opinion absolutely, and were not able to completely stifle BNP electoral successes up until 2010, the influence of Jewish/Zionist media moguls has been sufficient to prevent the BNP from making sustained and increasing gains and the party’s gains have been, as I have described earlier, sporadic and short lived.
While the BNP did achieve a notable Internet presence through their party website, the BNP never took the time to build a nationalist media capable of rivalling that of organised Jewry, and the BNP have throughout their history been largely dependent for their media outreach, upon the Zionist mass media, i.e. British nationalism’s most determined and implacable political enemies. Predictably therefore, the media have made sure that the BNP have never had the opportunity to promote British nationalism in a way that the public would find attractive.
We should therefore be cognisant of the fact that UKIP have no more established a nationalist media than the BNP, and UKIP are therefore be just as dependent upon the generosity of Zionist/Jewish media moguls for their continued electoral success as the BNP are.
While we may therefore wish UKIP well in the elections to come, while there may be some honourable men and women among their ranks, and while we may eventually benefit from the effect that UKIP successes may have in breaking the ‘two party’ strangle hold on British politics, we should not be so foolish as to place our trust in UKIP as a potential vehicle for national salvation.
UKIP will either toe the line and obey the wishes of organised Jewry, or the media moguls will turn off the tap of sympathetic news coverage and let loose their ‘attack dogs’ to rip into UKIP at every step and turn.
UKIP may make further electoral gains and may eventually become the junior partner in a future coalition government with the Conservatives, but our current mass media will never allow them the power to implement truly nationalist policies.
The building of a nationalist mass media is one of the six prerequisites that I set out in an article last year entitled The Great White Hope? and it is clear that until that prerequisite has been achieved UKIP and the BDP, and/or any other nationalist political party, will either completely sell out to the forces of Zionist Jewry or their electoral gains, should they achieve any, will be short lived and their influence illusory.
We must therefore set out with determination to grow our own mass media and our own media moguls, for verily, with regard to electoral matters, media moguls giveth and media moguls taketh away!
By Max Musson © 2014
# # # #